Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Rural Poverty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Mrs. Diana Organ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to have this debate this morning. I raised the debate at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who, like many others in the House, share an interest in this issue.
Poverty is not just concerned with money—or, rather, the lack of it—but that remains central to the issue. The most relevant definition of poverty that I could find was provided by Action with Communities in Rural Areas, which said:
Poverty is going short materially, socially and emotionally. It means coping with the stress of managing on very little money. Above all, poverty takes away the tools to create the building blocks for the future. It stops people being able to take control of their own lives.
It is about being unable to participate fully in society, about being isolated and excluded.
Poverty, urban or rural, is undoubtedly debilitating. It limits people in every aspect of their lives. Urban poverty is blatant. We all see it, in high-rise flats, rough sleepers in cardboard boxes, dereliction, graffiti and litter. It is acknowledged by decision makers, and is politically recognised.
However, rural poverty is hidden. It is masked in its isolation. It is scattered in small pockets of deprivation that often sit cheek by jowl with great wealth. It is obscured by the landscape. It sits uncomfortably with our national perception of the rural idyll. We visit, or even live in, the countryside, yet we do not see it. However glorious the scenery, it does not deliver employment, housing or education. However beautiful the Peak district, the Yorkshire dales or the Wye valley, one cannot eat the scenery.
The problem has gone unrecognised for many years. The previous Administration overwhelmingly ignored national research presented by organisations and academics that highlighted the true plight of the poor in this country. The Breadline report, by Mack and Lansey, in 1985, showed that 22 per cent. of the British population were in poverty or were on the margins of it.
The previous Administration ignored the evidence that Britain was becoming a two-nation state: the rich and the poor. That was exemplified in rural areas of England, where earnings were known to be below the national average. The earnings gap between rural counties and the

English mean widened between 1980 and 1995. Indeed, Cloke et al identified in their study of 12 rural areas that 44 per cent. of households in rural counties received a gross annual salary of less than £8,000.
The indicators used for identifying areas of deprivation have an unfair bias towards urban areas. The census enumeration districts, used for collecting the data, are too large. They obscure the small pockets of rural deprivation that are hidden among the swathes of more wealthy rural residents.
The aggregation of the earning statistics only conceals isolated poverty by raising incomes to above the average, especially in villages and market towns. The ownership of a car, for instance, is taken as an affluence indicator, while in rural areas it is a necessity, because there is no integrated public transport. Seventy-five per cent. of all English parishes do not have a daily bus service. Many people in rural areas sacrifice much to keep the car on the road.
Children living in high-rise flats are a good indicator of poverty, but not in the country. Detached houses are seen as a sign of wealth, which, more often than not, is true in a town or city, but in the country, isolated detached cottages can hide behind their doors elderly couples struggling on meagre incomes.
There are other ways of mapping an area. The indicators used are not the only ones available. Other statistical information throws up a different picture of the areas of deprivation. In 1997, Oxford university mapped four rural counties—Wiltshire, Dorset, Shropshire and Oxfordshire—using local authority information on housing benefit claimants and council tax rebates. The map exposed rural deprivation that had previously been hidden.
In Gloucestershire, a bid to the single regeneration challenge fund, led by the county council in partnership with other agencies, especially Gloucestershire rural community council, proposed a project to regenerate the most deprived market towns in the county. A matrix of criteria was used to identify them, including unemployment, absence of car ownership, children in low-income households, overcrowding and general lack of amenities.
Seven market towns in the county were shown to have areas of real poverty not previously revealed by other surveys. The project showed high unemployment, lack of job opportunities, drug and alcohol abuse problems among the young, and people distanced by isolation, poor access and, most notably, inadequate transport services.
Data are only as good as the information that they examine. There should be a review of indicators. They should be able to locate small, scattered, isolated areas of poverty and sensitive to the needs of all areas, urban and rural. Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies face the problems of rural poverty in our surgeries. However, it is vital not only that we are personally aware of deprivation but that it is recognised politically and in the Government statistics that are collected and acknowledged by decision makers.
Rural communities are often tightly knit. It can be like living in a goldfish bowl. That has its advantages, but it can often lead to people hiding their poverty from their neighbours. Pride and self-esteem prevent people from revealing their desperate plight. In towns and cities where large communities face similar problems, less stigma


attaches to declaring disadvantage. That is not true of villages and hamlets. The elderly in particular see shame in not being able to cope, and do not seek help. At present, we have no method of identifying such people.
There are self-help groups in urban areas, such as the Matson neighbourhood community project. It is an innovative scheme on a large council estate in Gloucester that has created a network of self-help activities ranging from advice centres to training opportunities, activities for the young and programmes to combat crime and vandalism. It is a wonderful example of a community taking control and trying to raise standards of living for everyone on the estate. That model would be difficult to replicate in a rural environment. The deprived communities in rural areas are small and scattered. It is difficult to give such communities self-help programmes. A new approach needs to be considered.
One is doubly disadvantaged when one is poor and lives in the countryside, because of the lack of good public transport. No transport means that one lives in a no-go area: no-go to advice centres, doctors, jobs or interviews.
Last week, a group of students from the Royal Forest of Dean college visited me in the House of Commons. I had invited them because they had completed a survey of transport issues concerning young people in the area. Ironically, they arrived back at Gloucester railway station only to discover that the last bus had departed and that there were no rail connections that night stopping at Lydney, the only railway station in my constituency. One lad had to beg a lift. Was it 11 pm or midnight? No, it was 6.50 pm—hardly late.
The deregulation of bus services in 1985 led to the demise of rural bus services and has given rise to absolute rural isolation. I welcome the Government's commitment to an integrated transport system and investment in public transport with the recent announcement allowing local authorities to use a hypothecated tax to help establish better public transport systems.
There are, however, other options that can be developed and extended to improve rural transport, such as dial-a-ride schemes that offer a bus service to the elderly. They are liberating for such people in remote areas but could be extended to parents at home with children, who are often unable even to get to the shops. Cornwall has piloted a scheme whereby post office vans run regular routes and are adapted to carry passengers and provide an extra service in remote areas. We must re-think and take initiatives to implement innovative options to increase the mobility of all in rural areas.
For many people, isolation means real deprivation. However, access is about not only mobility but information and services. If people cannot access information, how can they know what is available, or that they are receiving the services and benefits to which they are entitled? The move taken by many local authorities to open one-stop shops offering a range of advice on local authority issues has been successful, but they are often absent in rural areas. Advice centres spring up ad hoc from the voluntary sector but they can be disjointed and their services inconsistent if they cover large areas. They often lack a co-ordinated focus.
Rural areas must have equality of provision of services with urban areas. They should not be discriminated against just because such provision is more difficult or expensive. We must ensure that resources from central Government recognise the cost of providing rural services.
In 1996–97 in shire counties, local authorities were expected to spend £417 on social service provision for each elderly person. The national average was £485. The amount spent in inner-city London boroughs was double: £878. Such disparity must not be sustained. It is recognised that virtually all rural services inevitably cost more because of the dispersed population and lack of economies of scale. The money provided by central Government has not reflected that. Rural communities are asking not for special treatment but for equity of provision.
To solve the problems of rural poverty, we must have what the rural community councils call the three-legged stool approach, which tackles all aspects of rural poverty. The three legs are economic, social and environmental regeneration. This Government have been the first not only to acknowledge social exclusion nationally but to tackle it. They have set up a social exclusion unit. To be truly successful nationally, it must have a rural dimension.
The Labour Government have put in place new policies that will help to lift people out of poverty. The welfare-to-work programme, with the minimum wage, will start to address the regeneration of rural areas and provide real job opportunities at a decent wage. Too often, rural employment is seasonal and low wage. The decision that there will be regional deviations from the minimum wage will help, but the welfare-to-work programme must recognise the added cost of providing for a scattered, isolated clientele and the difficulties of travelling to work and to training venues. Many training programmes will have to be individually delivered, so economies of scale will not come into play.
Imaginative schemes already exist to help to overcome such difficulties. The jump start programme has been successfully piloted in the Cotswolds. It employs a transport broker to co-ordinate information and encourage car sharing but also manages a fleet of mopeds available at minimum cost to young people so that they can attend interviews and training. Forty per cent. of new deal applicants needed help with transport in rural areas such as the Cotswolds. The scheme should be duplicated as good practice in all rural new deal initiatives.
The Government are putting into place regional development agencies that will have a strategic regional remit to ensure economic regeneration across the whole of regions. They must have the three-legged stool approach. Sustainable economic regeneration is possible only if social and community regeneration goes hand in hand with economic development. The previous Administration created a cycle of decline in rural communities. Their relaxation of planning led to great influxes of commuters invading small villages, which radically altered the make-up of communities.
Wealthy commuters often looked for their services elsewhere. They shopped and worked in the towns, and used urban post offices close to where they worked. The viability of local village shops was undermined. Post offices were closed. Services such as garages and other shops vital to a living, breathing community diminished.


That is devastating for the less well-off in the community. The shops that remained open often had prices up to 15 per cent. higher to cope with increased overheads and take advantage of the tourist trade.
The lack of services is shown by the fact that 42 per cent. of parishes have no permanent shop; 43 per cent. have no post office; 49 per cent. have no school; and 83 per cent. have no general practitioner based in the parish. I welcome the dial-a-nurse initiative in the health White Paper; it will be useful for rural areas to have some contact with such nurses.
There is much debate about projected housing provision in rural areas. Rural villages and market towns need to grow to continue to be sustainable, so that services such as garages, schools and post offices can be maintained.
We must not preserve an Arcadia in aspic. We must have thriving rural communities that grow and change according to the needs of all their inhabitants. Small communities should be allowed to assess their own housing needs, so that affordable, sensitive, social and private-sector developments can be well incorporated in those communities.

Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the praise that she has heaped on the neighbourhood community project at Matson in my constituency. Does she agree that the problem of affordable housing pushes young people in particular from rural into urban areas to find homes and work? That is a drain on the resources of urban areas such as Gloucester, because young people have to be provided with night shelters.
Gloucester has been allocated money as one of the
16 local authority areas under the rough sleepers initiative. Many people come to Gloucester from my hon. Friend's constituency and from other parts of the Cotswolds to find work and homes. Does she agree that it is in the interests of urban as well as rural areas to ensure that people have affordable housing and jobs, so that they can stay in their own rural communities?

Mrs. Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Homelessness exists in rural as well as in urban areas. Young people often leave their villages and end up homeless on the streets of our towns and cities. There is not enough social housing in our villages to keep our young people in their communities, so villages lose the next generation and cease to grow organically.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Lady aware that statistics show that homelessness in the countryside is now increasing at a higher rate than in the city?

Mrs. Organ: It is true that homelessness in rural areas is increasing, but many local authorities in rural areas do not even carry out an audit of homelessness in their area. Two thirds of local authorities in rural areas did not bother to submit statistics on homelessness: they do not realise the extent of the problem.
We should adopt the Belgian model, whereby each village carries out a voluntary assessment of its need for social and public housing. That is then incorporated into the statutory system, and is part of the planning process at district and regional level. Locally, we have gone a long

way towards that with our village appraisals, but those voluntary assessments should be fed into the statutory process.
Once the independent Food Safety Agency has been established, it may be possible to reform the Ministry of Agriculture. I want a Department of rural affairs, so that there would be a rural advocate at the heart of Government. That would, for the first time, give rural communities a powerful voice at the centre of decision making, and would ensure that sustainable policies were developed for the countryside.
Not only must we deal with the problems that we have inherited from the previous Administration, who chose to ignore rural poverty: we face a time of change, with the reform of the common agricultural policy and the adoption of Agenda 2000. All parties agree that the common agricultural policy should be transformed into an integrated rural policy. National and European resources should be provided for rural regeneration.
On 1 May 1997, 170 new Labour Members were returned to the House from rural and semi-rural constituencies, because the previous Administration failed to address the problems in rural areas, and because they had created a two-nation state in our countryside. The Labour Government will stop the decay, and will create a new cycle of renewal for the forgotten and unrecognised poor.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady about the need to reform the common agricultural policy. It would be wrong for her to end her speech without referring to the present crisis in the countryside that threatens to undermine any future efforts to establish a new rural viability.
I have a letter from a trader in my constituency, who is trying to build up his business so that his son can be included. He tells me that the basis of rural life is in question because of the agricultural crisis. He begs me to bring his letter to the attention of the House and the Government, and to make the point that the problem must be treated as the grave crisis it is. Does she agree with that, and will she press her colleagues on the Government Front Bench to take action in the near future?

Mrs. Organ: It is true that some farmers face a crisis. Not all farmers are poor, and we must discriminate between those who have a substantial income and are doing very well and those who are poor. Farming underpins the rural economy up and down the chain. Farmers need help, which is why we need to reform the common agricultural policy and to put the resources into a wider, integrated rural policy.

Mr. John Burnett: What is unique about the present agricultural crisis is that it has an impact on all sectors: sheep, milk, cattle, corn—the lot. That is what makes it so severe. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Ceredigion: I hope that the hon. Lady will bring this matter to the attention of her Front-Bench colleagues, because it is so important.

Mrs. Organ: Farmers, particularly in less-favoured areas, are having an extremely difficult time; that is why, on 22 December, the Government provided an extra £82 million-worth of aid for those farmers. We have recognised their plight, and we are tackling the problem.
The Labour Government will provide new opportunities for rural areas to help poor farmers and the many other rural poor, who have been ignored until now.

Mr. Alan Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on bringing this topic to the fore in our debates. I was interested in her extended, philosophical definition of poverty. I do not wish to criticise the way in which she presented her case, but, if I may say so, it was a little short on detailed, constructive proposals. The two most interesting suggestions were drawn out after interventions.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) raised the issue of the neglect of the agricultural scene. An enormous cash flow of taxpayers' money right across the Community is being misapplied. It is a most interesting concept. Were the common agricultural policy to be properly reformed, some of the money could be devoted to an agricultural revival.
Surely it should be diverted into—Conservative Members are perhaps no longer allowed to use the word "subsidy", but I am not frightened of it—subsidising the revival of organic farming. If true organic farming were re-implanted in the countryside, there would be an enormous increase in employment opportunities in all rural areas. That is surely better than building up mountains of unwanted produce, or repetitiously funding sectors that have already been greatly enriched by that process.
In relating rural poverty to the abuses of the common agricultural policy, the hon. Lady has blazed a trail in our debates that will flavour many of our questions in the weeks to come.
I referred to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, and I was glad to see a member of his party in the Chamber. I am a little disappointed that so few of my hon. Friends have attended.

Mr. Anthony Steen: There is one present.

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is an exception.
I am particularly surprised that no one from the Scottish National party has attended. There is a good case to be made for the way in which the problem of rural poverty is handled in Scotland. The community atmosphere, to which the hon. Lady rightly drew attention, is much more vital and alive in the highlands of Scotland than it is in the south. I can give examples of the many detailed provisions.
The post bus sometimes picks up children from their homes and takes them to school. My son lives in the very far north, and was supplied with baby food by the gritting lorries that were clearing the roads, because nothing else could get through. Mutual dependence of that kind within a community is one of the key solutions to poverty—not just poverty in the financial sense, which the hon. Lady rightly described as only one component of poverty in general. I am talking about the feeling of belonging, and the ability of people to help one another when the need arises.
Let me return to the subject of Scotland, and to a point related to the intervention of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham). The impact of the council tax in Scotland has led to a scandalous practice: landlords and proprietors are removing the roofs from their crofts and cottages, or at any rate allowing them to deteriorate to such an extent that they are no longer liable for the tax.
If the properties were refurbished—which would cost much less than building new dwelling units—they would be of very little value, and there would be scope for fulfilling many of the requirements for affordable housing. The same thing was happening in the 19th century. It is amazing to see the Scottish countryside returning to a condition that was prevalent in the early part of this century.
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean gave statistics relating to parishes, but did not mention the Church. In Scotland, priests and ministers play a marked and welcome role. The churches are all open, and the part they play in the community is very different from the part that, alas, they seem to play in parts of the south. Churches in the south are often locked, and priests and curates sometimes have a rather idiosyncratic view of their role in the community—but I do not wish to criticise them.
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke interestingly and discursively, and the House's time has been well spent.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on raising such an important matter. She dealt ably with the depressing statistics relating to life in the countryside, and rightly pointed out that those of us with rural constituencies hear such stories every day.
The loss of services in country districts has a disproportionate effect in comparison with the loss of services in towns. It is a particular problem for the less well-off. The better-off can drive to the nearest town or city to take advantage of services, but a third of country householders do not have cars, and those who have them but are not well off will find it very difficult to maintain them. If their cars break down, it is not a simple question of telephoning the AA or the RAC. The cars may be off the road for several weeks.

Mr. Alan Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in the speech. 1 hope that he and his hon. Friends who represent rural constituencies will exert pressure on their right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is rumoured to be considering raising the price of petrol by as much as 20p a gallon—or is it 20p a litre? In any event, he is apparently going to raise it by a draconian amount, and that will have a tremendous impact on people in rural areas. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean rightly said, in rural areas a car is not a status symbol or a sign of wealth and privilege; it is an essential accessory.

Mr. Hurst: Like other rural Members, I am aware that the price of petrol is an integral ingredient of the domestic budget in many households.
A notable aspect of rural deprivation is the closure of country schools, which has continued apace for several decades. Parents are increasingly having to travel to


different towns and villages to take their children to primary and secondary schools. That has had a number of consequences, for parents and for society as a whole. County councils are increasingly strapped for cash, and are examining their budgets minutely to see what savings can be made. In my county of Essex, the council has been trying to save money on home-to-school transport, which is an essential service for people living in villages and country areas.
The principle of home-to-school transport, which was laid down as long ago as the mid-1940s, is that a child who lives two and a half miles or more from a primary school, or three miles from a secondary school, is entitled to free transport. That is a geographer's delight. Those in county hall can examine maps, measure distances and devise alternative routes in an attempt to save money.
Let me give an example from my constituency in north Essex. The village of Silver End is some miles from the town of Witham, and for many years the children have travelled on a bus provided by the county. An astute official at county hall ascertained that it was possible to travel from Silver End to Witham by a back route, the distance being fractionally less than three miles. It involved negotiating a dark footpath between high hedges, and open fields, overhanging woods and deep ditches.
I am not exaggerating. The county sub-committee inspected the new route, which was intended to save costs. Its members managed to cross the ploughed field, which, fortunately, was dry at that time of year; but, as they approached the six-foot ditch, two of the older members decided that they had seen enough, and concluded that free school transport should continue—although one of the more economically minded members said, "When I was a boy, we took delight in jumping ditches." Parents living in villages greatly fear the loss of free school transport.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Liberal-controlled Devon county council is now thinking of getting rid of free transport to many schools, particularly denominational schools. Catholic schools in my constituency have been told that the children cannot have free transport. Does the hon. Gentleman applaud or deplore that?

Mr. Hurst: I must confess that I am not aware of the intricacies of Devon affairs. Others may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question more fully than I. I would prefer to steer the debate as far away as possible from party politics.

Mr. David Drew: One of the problems is that, in rural areas particularly, the age of the coaches puts children at risk. In my constituency, a number of vehicles have been tested and have then had to be taken off the road immediately. I am pleased to hear that the Government intend to improve seat belt safety. Vehicles need to be checked repeatedly to ensure that children are not put at risk.

Mr. Hurst: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Rural school transport is threatened as a

result of local government economies, but the problem is wider than that. The principles of free school transport were devised in, I believe, 1944—

Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurst: I do not wish to be ungracious, but I have been generous in giving way, and I now want to finish my speech.
That world was different from the one in which we now live. At that time, most children lived in households with probably two parents. One would almost certainly have worked locally, and the mother would probably have been at home and able to take the children to school. The lanes along which they walked were almost free from traffic, crime was much lower, and fear of crime was a notion that had not been devised. When the measurements were set, conditions were a world away from what they are now.
I am concerned about the burdens being placed on poor families by the withdrawal of free school transport. A parent who takes a child to and from secondary school four times a day has a round trip of almost 12 miles. That is about 60 miles a week. The whole day is dominated by taking the child to and from school in dangerous circumstances. Part of the journey will be undertaken in the dark, and the mother—it is usually the mother—will return home alone or with a young child during dangerous times of the day.
Country roads are not the peaceful havens that they once were. They are frequently used as rat runs by people on the way to work, and the hazards are especially great at the time of day between darkness and light when a pedestrian caught between oncoming cars can be dazzled by their headlights. Parents will have to face such hazards if free school transport is withdrawn.
On Friday, I attended the House for a debate on a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) about a reduction in road usage. That aim will hardly be helped if we force parents to use their cars to take children to and from school as a consequence of saving small sums by denying them school transport.
I have concentrated on one aspect of rural life, but it is an important aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean presented a broad view of the many problems that face people in rural areas. Some relate to the closure of community hospitals, the pressures on rural library service, the failure to build affordable houses in villages, and the decimation of jobs in agriculture. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) for mentioning schemes that may stimulate employment in agriculture.
This is an important debate, and it is disappointing that more hon. Members are not here. I hope that we can make progress, with all-party support, to assist those in country areas, so that they become part of living, working communities.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate, although important, is short. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on securing this important debate, and on her speech, which I endorse. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) on his speech. I agree with his comments about organic agriculture.
The debate has more than just a hint of deja vu, because, before I was elected to the House last year, I was in rural community development work for 15 years in England and Cornwall. I worked to promote rural social housing, community transport, credit unions, community facilities, village surveys and economic development. I was born and brought up in deepest rural Cornwall as one of a large family. Although I did not appreciate it at the time, I experienced rural poverty.
Why do we need to emphasise rural poverty rather than urban poverty? Are they the same? They are not, although for some people poverty is the important matter. However, opportunities in rural areas are restricted, and are often accompanied by a lack of confidence within rural populations. A sense of being grateful and not demanding is part of the rural demeanour. We keep coming back to the subject. Why do we have to repeat that, behind the chocolate box images and the picture postcards, lie the manifold problems of low wages, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, poor services, poor access to facilities that suburban and urban communities often take for granted?
People in rural areas rightly feel that they must constantly ask others to look behind the scenes, because the deprivation is almost invisible. The same does not apply in urban areas. In some ways, it would be an achievement for rural areas if urban communities felt that they needed to redress the balance by mounting a campaign to draw attention to urban poverty.
Some rural areas are currently competing with some of the most deprived urban areas to be the poorest in the land. The Conservative party seeks to wear the superficial disguise of self-appointed guardians of the countryside and rural areas. Not only are Conservative Members largely absent for the debate, but their party had a remarkable record in government of presiding over a period of rapidly increasing rural poverty. Not surprisingly, one area which experienced that is Cornwall. It easily occupies bottom place in the GB earnings table, and in recent years the gap has tended to widen.
Male earnings in Cornwall were 16 per cent. below the GB average in 1981, but 23 per cent. below that average by last year. Not only are earnings low, but there are fewer incomes because of high unemployment and inactivity. Unemployment, especially in west Cornwall, is generally at least double the rate in the south-west, of which Cornwall is supposed to be a part.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate, although I watched it on television and listened to the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ).
My hon. Friend is speaking about Cornwall. Is he aware that it is a pilot area for the Government's new deal project? Are the people of Cornwall worried about the compulsion element of the new deal, which means that people are told to take up training or education or lose

benefit? In deeply rural areas such as Cornwall and my constituency, there are no such options, and people will be penalised by losing benefit.

Mr. George: As my hon. Friend says, Cornwall is a pilot area, and we shall give the scheme a fair wind. I share his concern about compulsion.
Although per capita GDP in Cornwall is 71 per cent. of the UK average, it is lower than the level anywhere in England except for the Isle of Wight. It was never protected by the Conservative Government from rampant and inappropriate housing developments throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. Under the Conservatives, Cornwall was one of the fastest growing areas in the UK, although that merely contributed to its economic problems. In terms of a comparison with urban poverty, both Cornwall and the Isle of Wight have GDPs per head that are significantly lower than traditionally deprived areas such as Merseyside, with which Cornwall is often compared.
Cornwall's GDP is among the lowest in Europe, and is on a par with the poorest parts of Greece and Spain. However, that is not always how Cornwall is perceived. Many such rural areas have to overcome assumptions that have been generated by the images about the place. The Cornish people become quaint appendages to the landscape, and people talk about discovering the place almost as if it had never existed until their arrival. In reality, the Cornish live in ghettos and what are often described as windswept council house reservations, not in pretty cottages in the cove.
We shall always have to return to these matters, not only because of poverty among rural people but because of a poverty of understanding of what it is like to be poor and living in a rural area. Behind those images there are even deeper problems, such as the high cost of living in rural areas. Cornwall has the highest water and electricity charges in the country, and the biggest mismatch between earnings and house prices. Hundreds of Cornish council homes have been sold off and not replaced, but some better properties have been bought as second and holiday homes, and lost to the local community.
As if Cornwall had not experienced enough, it also lost a further 1,500 jobs in 1997, including the largest factory in my constituency. Most of Cornwall's farm holdings now fail to generate enough income to support even one person, and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy and bovine tuberculosis crises are affecting Cornwall more severely than most other agricultural regions. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) knows, Cornwall is bracing itself for the possible closure of Europe's last remaining tin mine after 2,000 years of proud history.

Mr. Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that the closure of factories—indeed a factory in my constituency, Machynlleth Design in Machynlleth, is in the same position—has a far more devastating effect in the countryside. where the geographical mobility of the work force is impaired due simply to their circumstances?

Mr. George: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problems of grabbing new work opportunities are extremely restricted by the fact that one has ties to the local community, and the opportunities for further employment are simply not there in many rural areas.
What have the so-called new guardians of the countryside on the Conservative Benches done to help over the past 18 years? They have sold off council houses, and given second homes a 50 per cent. council tax rebate. They have given Cornwall the highest water and electricity bills and privatised aspects of our health service, including the dental service and sight tests. They have reduced funding for essential local authority services and failed to heed the case, not for special treatment, but for a fair deal for places such as Cornwall and many other rural areas. They have given our livestock farmers the BSE problem, and they have placed Cornwall in perpetual recession. I have to concede, however, that they did give us the cones hotline.
If the Conservatives were behaving as the guardians of rural areas and the countryside, 1 do not know whose countryside they were guarding. It certainly was not the countryside of the poor. It was therefore no wonder that, in the Celtic regions and countries of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, the Conservatives were completely wiped out.
In all those years, at least the Tories did not abolish the great invention of the last Liberal in this House by the name of George, Lloyd George: the creation of the Development Commission, now the Rural Development Commission, which is widely accepted as one outstanding Government agency that has worked. It has been widely acclaimed for its contribution to the understanding of rural poverty and to actions to reduce it.
That is why there is strong opposition to the Government's decision to draw their resources largely into what will be urban-biased regional development agencies. RDAs, by the way, will be about not unifying communities of interest in the English regions, but replacing the bland uniformity of a centralised state with the bland uniformity of regions, which I believe do not exist. RDAs will be based on administrative convenience.
As defined from above, RDAs will contain, in regions such as the so-called south-west, more internal conflict than shared agendas and will therefore hold the seeds of their own destruction. As they will be about focusing on bringing up the average for the region as a whole, RDAs will prove largely irrelevant for remoter rural areas.

Ms Candy Atherton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what Cornwall needs is a devastating voice in Europe to make our case on rural poverty and to attack the problems? If we have a strong development agency that is well staffed, equipped and supported by Government, are we not going to be in a stronger position than we would be with an agency purely for Cornwall?

Mr. George: The hon. Lady raises an important point, with which I strongly disagree, because Cornwall's voice will be lost in this so-called regional development agency.
The political reality that the Government must face up to is that rural poverty has now been proven to be a serious problem which, away from the prosperous suburbs, is set to get worse. Action needs to be taken. I and my colleagues strongly recommend that rural poverty should receive proper recognition in Government policies and programmes; that the proposed social exclusion unit should have a clear rural dimension; that official indicators of poverty must show a greater account of rural circumstances; that the problems of providing services in

scattered rural areas are properly recognised in a rural sparsity factor in all local government departments; and that the extra cost of meeting rural housing needs is acknowledged by the Government and the Housing Corporation.
I also support the proposal of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean for a department of rural affairs. The problems that are being experienced by our farmers, especially livestock farmers, should be recognised as a crisis, and not part of long-term restructuring problems in agriculture.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) not only on securing the debate, but on covering it so thoroughly in her opening speech—so thoroughly, in fact, that I can throw away about two thirds of what I intended to say.
For about six years, I have represented a rural part of Lancashire. I am aware that, in this part of the world, there is a mind fix that Lancashire is full of cotton mills, with docks at one end and Blackpool tower at the other. In fact, it is largely a rural shire. On a small map, my constituency appears to be sandwiched between Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Preston, but if people live in it—as I have done for 30 years—they realise that it is a huge area of tiny hamlets, larger villages and lousy transport systems.
I want to talk about the problems faced by people who live in that area, and who depend on other people to get about. In particular, I want to concentrate on the plight of many elderly people. A main factor in rural poverty—not just financial, but psychological poverty—is isolation.
When the Conservative Government deregulated bus services in Britain, they dealt many people in the rural population a severe blow. Before deregulation, bus services were skeletal, but they did exist, making it just about possible for people on low incomes to commute to shops, schools, hospitals, leisure facilities or, perhaps most important, work.
After deregulation, many, if not most, of those rural bus services vanished completely, and those that remained became much more expensive. The burden of keeping any of those arteries open was put on local authorities: in my case, Lancashire county council, which struggled valiantly—I was on the relevant committee during that period—to keep some subsidised bus routes running. However, precisely as it was trying to do that, the Conservative Government were busy squeezing the council's budgets harder and harder and making it more and more impossible for it to keep the routes running.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) has said, people became totally dependent on private cars, making multiple journeys every day, and on taxis—rural taxis are something else—which the poorest people in the community cannot afford. They do not have cars, and they cannot afford taxis.

Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the diversion from public to private transport is


exacerbating rural poverty? People who most need to get to their perhaps poorly paid jobs are having to depend on cars, which they can ill afford.

Mr. Pickthall: That is true. Elderly people in particular, who are unable to walk easily, cannot get even to what facilities there are in rural communities. It is an important point, which the Government have to address.
My local council, under both Tory and Labour control, has a wonderful record of building sheltered accommodation in small rural communities, so that elderly people, when they retire, can stay in the communities where they have lived and worked all their life, but the collapse of the rural transport system has effectively isolated many of those people, many of them retired farm workers on pitiful pensions, who cannot afford to run cars. I know more than a few who, as a result, have moved from the communities and tiny villages where they have lived all their lives to market towns such as Ormskirk, simply to escape the isolation of those rural communities. They then find themselves isolated in an urban community, but at least the clinic and their general practitioner are around the corner.

Dan Norris: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although some people cannot afford cars, they often have to run one because it is essential to do so, even though it can be to the detriment of other aspects of their lives because they then have less to spend on clothing or food? In some ways, the tax system is also prejudiced against those people. They can afford to tax their cars for only six months at a time, but that method costs £15 more a year than taxing it for the full 12 months in one go. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could consider that matter, as life for some people in rural communities would be difficult, if not impossible, without a car.

Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When one sees some of the cars that are miraculously kept on the road in rural areas, one has to wonder about their safety. However, it is true that many people make incredible sacrifices simply to keep themselves mobile.
As village shops, sub-post offices and even rural pubs began to close in my area, it became clear that people who live in rural areas and who are poor pay more for everything, from groceries to furnishings, than those who are not poor. They pay more because they cannot get to the supermarket in the town. Just as important, their choice is cruelly circumscribed when compared to that available to people on the same income who happen to live in even a modest-sized town.
My constituency is served, and used to be well served, by two cross-country rail lines with 10 rural stations. One might think that that was a good network but, during the Tory years, it was steadily run down. The services became less frequent—dramatically so in some cases. It was decided that many of the services would omit every other station or miss out two stations, thus making them less useful. The unreliability of the rail service has come to have serious consequences for workers. People who have jobs in Wigan, Southport, Preston or Liverpool find that their service is late perhaps three times a week, and they are sacked. That happens regularly.
Two stations in my constituency are wholly inaccessible to anyone who is not fully fit. Burscough Bridge station, for example, has a platform so low that an elderly person could not get onto the train.

Mr. Drew: When the jobseeker's allowance was introduced by the previous Administration, it highlighted the problem caused by the lack of public transport. People in Gloucestershire who had to sign on in person found it very difficult to do so, because they had trouble getting to a particular place at a particular time. The county council's public transport unit had some heart-rending calls from people who had to sign on at 10 am on Wednesday but who were told that the first bus was on Thursday. How were they supposed to sign on? That is the sort of problem facing people in rural areas.

Mr. Pickthall: That is absolutely true. To add insult to injury, the person going to sign on could be paying £3 out of his dole just to get to the office to be able to sign on. Virtually everything that the previous Government did in the past few years hit the rural poor harder than it hit anyone else. I would like to think that they did not quite understand what they were doing. In my view, it was a serious social crime for an effective, if sparse, public transport system to have been sabotaged by the previous Government in recent decades. Fundamentally, the Government did not believe in or understand public transport.
In my area, it is two Labour authorities—Lancashire county council and West Lancashire district council—which have struggled to patch up the mess, with an expanding system of dial-a-ride and community car schemes and some subsidised bus services. Although I admire those services and the work that goes into them, and they are useful, it is a hotch-potch of a system. It certainly cannot cover the area satisfactorily, and does not replace the full public transport system that we had.
I do not want to talk only about the problems facing the elderly in rural communities. The lack of public transport is also a problem for schoolchildren. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean has already dealt with that point, so I will not go over it again.
Teenagers who do not come from well-to-do families and who do not have the money to hire taxis or own cars have difficulty getting into town for even basic leisure facilities. This is leading, certainly in my area, to the problems that we usually associate with teenagers on urban estates. In one case, a community that comprises only 40 people has still managed to manufacture its own little gang.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first victims of the shortage of local government finance is all too often the youth service? Does he further agree that, in many county areas, we desperately need a proper comprehensive review of the standard spending assessment system, so that we can deliver essential services to people in rural communities, not least to the young people on whom we depend for our future?

Mr. Pickthall: We do indeed need a comprehensive review of the SSA system with that in mind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, all the


indicators of poverty need revision, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), will have something to say about that.
We said at the time that the right-to-buy housing policy introduced by the Conservatives would have a catastrophic effect in rural areas, and it did. By the time that the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), woke up to that fact, it was too late—the council properties in rural areas had all gone. Most of them were attractive properties; some were extended, and were then sold on to second owners.
The integration of the transport system, which the Government are proposing and on which they are consulting, is absolutely crucial, but we must not forget that we are talking about two countrysides. The first is populated by affluent people, often off-comers and people who escaped, in my case from Merseyside. Sometimes, these people managed to dodge the planning system and build a nice house, or had the money to buy one.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Gentleman think that an integrated transport policy should include an increase of 20p on a gallon of petrol?

Mr. Pickthall: Personally, I think that the tax on petrol is probably where it should be. I should prefer the car tax to be removed and put on petrol, but a lot of thought is going into how we can protect people in rural areas who need cars from an increase in the price of petrol. So far, every suggested solution, such as special registration, is too easy to dodge and fiddle. I do not know what the answer is.
As I was saying, there is the countryside of the affluent but, alongside that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, there is the countryside where people are living in the direst poverty. The contrast between the two is just as stark as it is in the cities.
I always compare poverty in rural areas with the gulag archipelago—poverty is scattered throughout the communities, and, because hundreds of people are not clustered together, it is not noticed. However, when one canvasses in rural areas, as we do all the time, it is noticeable. Every 10th or 15th house suffers poverty as dire as one might find on estates in Manchester or anywhere else.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean on one point. She said that we must ensure equity of provision of services for the countryside. I do not think that that is ever going to be possible. We could never provide for the rural areas all the facilities that are available to people in large concentrations in the urban areas. People in reasonably well-off households swap that inconvenience for the great benefits of clean air, quiet, a pleasant landscape and so on. They do a deal.
My concern is that the poor households often enjoy neither the benefits of rural life, because they are cramped by isolation and poverty, nor any of the conveniences of urban life which, at least from time to time, make the urban poor's life worth living. Rural poverty is a serious problem, to which there are no easy answers—its solution requires a holistic approach across every Government Department.

Mr. Anthony Steen: As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) spoke for 15 minutes and time is short, I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not give way or comment on the speeches that have been made—or even the excellent choice of debate of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ).
As a social worker and former youth leader, and during the nine years that I represented Liverpool, Wavertree, I dealt with grinding poverty and widespread social deprivation. Those problems—represented by decaying tower blocks, graffiti and boarded-up shops—are often viewed as belonging exclusively to the inner city. However, there are many similar problems in the constituency that I now represent, which is 301 miles away in rural south Devon. Certainly there are no tower blocks in the area's idyllic setting, but single mothers, the handicapped and those unable to find work face the same problems as their counterparts in the city.
The principal difference between poverty in the inner cities and in the rural communities is a matter not so much of intensity as of concentration. In many inner-city streets, the majority of people have no job, poor housing and are dependent on benefits. In rural areas, poverty may not be so concentrated, and the beauty of the landscape may mask the problems, but the problems exist none the less.
In cities, a variety of employers offer a diversity of opportunities for people with different skills, whereas, in the countryside, employment is principally agriculture-related. There are many threats to the rural way of life and standard of living, but none is more acute than the crisis in British farming. The proposed enlargement of the European Union to include the agriculturally dependent economies of central Europe will inevitably reduce EU support to British farmers, and the UK will probably be flooded with cheap imported food, which will put further pressures on British agriculture.
The Government's attitude to the rural economy seems at best unsympathetic, and at worst indifferent. That view is illustrated by the recent rate support grant settlements, in which rural England is disadvantaged in comparison with urban areas.

Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steen: I shall not give way.
The Government's attitude can perhaps be explained by the fact that the majority of their support comes from predominantly urban areas. [Interruption.] Their support also comes from a few rural areas.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Where are the Conservatives?

Mr. Steen: I accept that a few Conservative Members are missing today.
Farmers are at the epicentre of everything that happens in the countryside; they are the custodians of the landscape, the major employers, contractors and customers for rural businesses. Without agriculture, the countryside does not work. We must consider the Government's policy on agriculture against that background, and the wider goal of reducing poverty in rural England.
Although the Government have offered farmers £85 million compensation from European funds, they have taken away £129 million in cuts to the much-needed


over-30-months scheme, in extra charges for cattle passports and in payments for the Meat Hygiene Service. They have refused to use the underspend on sheep premium and set-aside to aid the lowland beef producer, the dairy farmer or the hill farmer, who are all being squeezed by the strength of the pound.
Those policies are having a detrimental effect on agriculture, which is why so many farmers have been driven to protest outside Parliament and elsewhere—I have joined them on the docks and ports. Farmers do not ask for Government or European handouts; they want the proverbial level playing field and adequate Government support to enable British agriculture to overcome its current difficulties.
The effect of the Government's lack of interest is serious enough in relation to agriculture, but it goes much wider than that. If a farmer goes bankrupt, the effect on the rural community will be dramatic. It is important that clearing banks are mindful of the difficulties that farmers from all sectors face, and that they provide them with sufficient support to weather the current situation.
Dozens of farmers in my constituency have been forced to lay off temporary milkers or cancel contracts with local builders. The builders are then forced to lay off staff, who in turn spend less on fuel and at the village shop.
In south Devon, tourism plays a major role in the local economy. Indeed, many farmers can make both ends meet only by offering bed and breakfast—if they did not, they would not survive. Farming is not about bed and breakfast, however. If the farming community can no longer afford to look after the fields, the hedgerows and the trees, there will be no bed and breakfast, as there will be much less to attract tourists. Without farmers, tourism could go into serious decline, and another major source of rural employment would dry up.
Many people think that poverty is an inner-city phenomenon; they do not believe that it can exist among green fields and countryside. If people are prisoners in their council houses because they cannot afford private transport and public transport is infrequent and expensive, they are locked into a situation every bit as bad as that facing people in the inner city. It makes little difference whether one is in Toxteth or Lee Moor when one is suffering from loneliness, depression and poor housing.
Throughout the world, when people cannot find work—or when available employment does not pay—they flock to the towns from the countryside. In many developing countries, that has resulted in massive overpopulation in the cities and a neglect of the land. Global institutions are constantly trying to persuade people to move back to the countryside, to repopulate rural areas and work in agriculture. In Europe, the migration to the cities mainly stopped after the war. In Britain, farmers have traditionally preserved the countryside, where they have created employment and sustained and improved the rural way of life.
People living in the countryside are now at a watershed. It is up to the Government to prevent a new underclass of the rural poor drifting into the cities and causing untold problems for the authorities, in housing and employment; they must prevent the rapid decline of the countryside through lack of investment and people. A modest commitment now will ensure the survival of British agriculture and the vitality of the rural economy.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for his contribution. I shall attempt to keep my comments as brief as possible, as there was an agreement on the duration of speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on choosing this important subject for debate, which is of great concern to many people, especially in the countryside.
Conservative Members recognise the importance of what the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, but, like other Labour Members, she should look not just to the past, but to the future. She should try to find solutions and consider whether the Government's proposals for the countryside would improve the situation that she so eloquently described.
The previous Conservative Government introduced a number of measures to help the countryside—unfortunately, I do not have time to list them now.

Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Day: I really cannot, with all due respect.
The most important measure introduced by the Conservative Government was the introduction of discretionary rate relief for rural shops and businesses, including pubs, which are still very much at the heart of village life. Other measures included the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which simplified the legal framework for rented land.
In the couple of minutes left to me, I want to stress our concern about the Government's proposal to create regional development agencies. Obviously, Labour Members whole-heartedly support the proposal, but the Opposition fundamentally disagree with it—we especially deplore the abolition of the Rural Development Commission, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) referred. The fact that the commission's chairman resigned solely because he believed that the abolition of that body and the establishment of RDAs was a threat to the countryside says everything about the Government's proposal.
If Labour Members are not concerned about the abolition of the Rural Development Commission, they ought to consider the solutions that the Government are proposing for the countryside. The Government have said that the social exclusion unit should have a rural strand to its work, but, at the moment, the unit is concentrating almost exclusively on urban areas. They have said that official indicators of deprivation and resource allocation systems such as the index of local conditions should be improved to take more account of rural conditions. I could list many such points that favour the countryside—but they will all go when the commission is abolished. Regional development agencies cannot provide the same functions.
Cornwall and Devon have been mentioned in the debate. We talk about the south-west as a region. One would think that the south-west was an identifiable region more than most, yet there is immense rivalry between Devon and Cornwall, and perceived distinct and definite needs. A single regional development agency for both counties will not be able to provide for their needs. It will lead to conflict between one urban area and another, and between urban areas and the countryside. That is not the answer for the countryside.
I wish that I had more time to make more points, but I want to be fair to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on raising this important issue. The subject should concern us all. I was pleased to hear the range of views expressed, especially by my hon. Friends, who prove that Labour is now the party of the countryside. They bring insight and passion to their advocacy for the countryside, as well as great experience of the particular difficulties suffered by those living in rural poverty.
The Government firmly believe in opportunity, fairness and prosperity for all. That applies equally to all our citizens, whether they live in the city or the country. Rural areas, where many live and work, are a key part of the national economy. Our countryside must be a living one. We are committed to addressing its problems as much as we are those anywhere else. At the same time, we recognise the distinctive needs of all people in rural areas.
Today's debate has been particularly illustrative. We heard three speeches by Conservative Members. The first was by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who, sadly, is not in his place. He talked about farming. The second was by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who also talked about farming, and said that Labour Members mainly come from urban areas. Anyone who had listened to today's debate would know that that is not true. If the hon. Gentleman considers who initiated the debate and who has contributed to it, he will have to admit that my hon. Friends are from rural areas, and do a good job representing them.
I was attracted to the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea about organic farming. The Government are looking very closely at that. I am a particular fan of farmers' markets. We need far more of them. I know that my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture are considering what they can do to encourage such markets.
When we consider rural poverty, we must recognise the legacy left by the previous Administration. I am always ready to give them credit where credit is due, as Opposition Members know.

Mr. Day: I must have missed it. When did you do that?

Angela Eagle: Well, occasionally.
The legacy has had a particular impact on rural areas. Hon. Members were right to emphasise transport issues. Poverty was bequeathed to us by the previous Government. We have inherited a situation in which one in four pensioners and one in four children are in families dependent on income support. The percentage of the population with household incomes below half the average more than doubled between 1979 and 1994–5. The number of children living in households with below average income increased from 1 million in 1979 to 2.6 million—before housing costs are taken into account.
Distribution of employment is also important. One in five households with adults of working age are without work. That is a terrible waste of one of our most important

resources. We are determined to tackle this legacy by helping young people, lone parents, long-term unemployed people and sick and disabled people—where that is appropriate—back into work, regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas. We have set up the social exclusion unit specifically to co-ordinate activity in that area across government.

Mr. Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Angela Eagle: I do not want to give way, because I have a very short time in which to respond to the debate.
Inaccessibility and sparsity play a major part in exacerbating problems of the rural poor, such as unemployment and lack of services. Many rural areas are poorly served by major transport routes—a problem in attracting and retaining businesses and services. Many rural settlements are scattered and remote, making the provision of services more difficult and expensive. The scattered nature of rural communities can add to a sense of isolation, especially among the poorest members of society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, it is a sad fact that much of the deprivation in rural areas goes unnoticed. We need to challenge the perception that rural areas are universally prosperous. Relatively wealthy rural areas can mask small pockets of deprivation—in some cases, just one or two families or a few poor elderly people. Problems of unemployment and lack of services in rural areas lead to younger people moving away, resulting in a larger percentage of elderly people in some rural communities compared with non-rural areas. Many such older people are alone and living on the margins of poverty.
In recognition of the hidden nature of rural poverty, work has been commissioned from a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge to review potential indicators of rural disadvantage, which can be helpful in the development of rural policy. One idea that the team has come up with is that key indicators are bundled together to identify specific aspects of rural poverty and deprivation. We shall be considering how its findings can be used when the final report is available. We want to tackle the issue of deprivation indicators so that they reveal more of what is going on in our rural communities.
Many of the initiatives that we are developing are being specifically tailored to meet the needs of rural areas. Welfare to work is an essential element of our integrated approach. Our new deal for young unemployed people emphasises high-quality options, all including education or training designed to reach accredited qualifications. The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds began in 12 pathfinder areas in Britain on 5 January, and will be introduced nationally in April. The pathfinder areas have been selected to reflect a range of social and economic areas, including rural areas.
We intend to design and deliver the new deal in a way that is sensitive to rural circumstances, the needs of rural businesses and communities and unemployed young people living in rural areas. I thank the Rural Development Commission and local authorities that have made an important contribution to the debate and enhanced our understanding of how we can deliver the new deal in rural areas.
Low pay continues to be a particular problem in rural areas. A central plank of our plans to alleviate poverty is the introduction of the national minimum wage. It will


aim to make work worth while for people who are stuck on benefits. The United Kingdom is the only modern industrialised country without some form of minimum-wage-fixing machinery. The minimum wage will provide a statutory level below which pay should not fall, and help to remove the worst excesses of low pay and exploitation of those at work. It will be a single national rate, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed out, will be of particular assistance in some rural areas.
Regional rates raise a number of serious difficulties, such as effects at the boundaries of regions, and where those boundaries are. Regional concerns were taken into account during the independent Low Pay Commission's regional visits. The commission is consulting widely with employers, employees and other interested organisations and individuals, and will make its recommendations to the Government by May 1998.
In the short time left to me, I want to say something about rural transport. As I have said, many of the problems of rural areas are exacerbated by inaccessibility and remoteness. Many people in rural areas are unable to drive, either because they cannot afford to do so or because of age or disability. They are likely to find their access to services and employment opportunities severely limited as a result. Better public transport services are vital, so that people can have real choice over how they travel, and need not be so dependent on the private car.
The rural dimension of transport and accessibility issues is being addressed in our continuing review of transport policy. The Government are considering the action necessary to deliver integrated transport systems to meet the differing needs of all parts of the country.
The Tory legacy has been especially damaging in that respect—the deregulation of buses and the total disappearance of services in many rural areas, as well as the decimation of rail services. We must tackle those issues if we are to tackle rural poverty through its causes, and that will give people access to services and the ability to travel to and from work.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important matter—a debate that takes place at a time and against a backdrop about as sombre as it would be possible to imagine. It is clear that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a quantifiable and lethal threat to the stability and security of the region, and it is essential that Saddam Hussein be made to meet the obligations of unconditional and unrestricted access demanded by the United Nations resolutions. Her Majesty's Government are rightly determined, as were their predecessors, to secure his full compliance—it is to be hoped, by diplomatic rather than by military means.
However, it seems to many of us that the virtual stalling of the middle east peace process represents a thoroughly unhappy and potentially dangerous state of affairs, which also has profound consequences for British strategic and other interests.
The Foreign Secretary is leaving today for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He, like the American Secretary of State, will find his dialogue with both the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to be courteous and correct, but wholly unenthusiastic. It is a matter for shame and regret that the Foreign Secretary, now eight months into his office, should be so late in visiting our Arab friends. That shows, again, his remarkable lack of judgment about priorities, as Britain's interests in the middle east should, without question, remain at the forefront of any Foreign Secretary's business.
As we approach, in May, the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the state of Israel, I welcome the chance at such an opportune moment—as the middle east approaches what could possibly be a profound climacteric—to re-focus on the outstanding and unresolved questions of Palestinian self-determination and Israeli-occupied Arab land, which are at the heart of the middle east conflict.
I hope that during the debate, we shall remind ourselves of the original principles and aims of the middle east peace process started in Madrid in 1991, and that we shall examine both why so many people in the middle east, both Arabs and Israelis, have lost faith in it, and what must be done to restore confidence and progress.
In this anniversary year of the state of Israel, it is right and proper that we in the British Parliament should remember what the events of 1948 meant to the 700,000 Palestinians who fled, who were forced into permanent exile from their homes in the newly established Jewish state and who, to this day, are unable to return to the places of their birth. The Arabic word for what happened in 1948 is "al-Nakba"—the catastrophe.
The results of that today are that three quarters of the Palestinian population is forced to live outside the country, with no right of return, and the Palestinian people who live in the west bank and Gaza are deprived of many of their most fundamental civil and political rights. They still have not achieved their goal of self-determination, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter of 1945. We should remember that the events of 1948 meant that the Palestinian people became the largest refugee population in the world, with the most horrendous and tragic consequences for them.
I should remind the House of the principles on which the peace process in Madrid in 1991, and then the agreement in Oslo in 1993, were based. In the lengthy and complicated diplomatic negotiations that led to the convening of the Madrid conference, the more reluctant Arab countries were persuaded to participate only when they had received cast-iron assurances from the co-sponsors that the negotiations would be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338—that is to say, land for peace.
In the letter of assurance from the United States Administration to the Palestinian deputation in October 1991, it was set down that
the US continues to believe firmly that a comprehensive peace must be grounded in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for peace. Such an outcome must also provide security and recognition for all states in the region, including Israel, and for the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people.
The same is true of the Oslo agreement of 1993, which despite widespread concern about the way in which the settlement was to be reached, was broadly accepted in the middle east because it was based on the relevant Security Council resolutions. The preamble to the declaration of principles of September 1993 reads:
The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is … to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority … Leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
In other words, people were willing to be patient in the belief that trust could, incrementally over a period, be built up—so long as the process worked towards the return of occupied Arab land, including southern Lebanon and the Golan heights, an end to military occupation of the west bank and Gaza, and the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people.
The result of that process, and the reality at the beginning of 1998, is very different. Five years on from the 1993 Oslo agreement, Israeli troops have fully redeployed from only 3 to 4 per cent. of the west bank and from 60 per cent. of the Gaza strip. East Jerusalem has been fully encircled by wholly illegal settlements, and movement within the occupied territories is more restricted than it ever was before the peace process began. Palestinian living standards have plummeted, and plans to increase the settler population in the west bank continue to flow from the Israeli Ministry of Housing.
Since the election of the Likud Government and the adoption of anti-Oslo policies, relations with neighbouring states have again soured, to the great detriment of peace and stability in the middle east. War continues in southern Lebanon, and the Israeli Prime Minister shows no interest in pursuing negotiations with Syria—and, if the truth were told, no interest in seriously pursuing the middle east peace process at all.
According to the Oslo timetable, full redeployment of Israeli troops from the occupied territories was supposed to have been completed by mid-1998. Yet in meetings with Netanyahu last week, the Administration seemed unable—indeed, unwilling—to try to persuade the Israeli Prime Minister away from his hard-line refusal even to contemplate a second redeployment plan on a scale that might restore some confidence in the peace process. In truth, the Americans simply bottled out yet again.
When we remember that the Palestine National Authority had envisaged a second redeployment which would leave it with 60 per cent. control of the west bank

and Gaza, the 9.5 per cent. offered by Israel is seen, rightly, as derisory. President Clinton seemed to water down the Oslo formula still further by suggesting that a way out of the impasse would be to break down the 9.5 per cent. into three separate phases of redeployment, and even then only after the PNA had taken unspecified security measures as a prerequisite.
Through sheer fecklessness—and, in the case of America, a total lack of will to take on the Zionist lobby—the middle east peace process has been allowed to drift away from its firm moorings in international law and from the principles of the Oslo agreement. That situation is once again being thrown into sharp relief as the Secretary of State rallies support for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, on Iraq.
It is not lost on Arab public opinion—our friends in the middle east—that, under the same United States Administration, the Americans have vetoed three of the eight resolutions that have come before the Security Council criticising Israeli breaches of international humanitarian law.
The comparisons that are being drawn between the response of powerful western members of the Security Council to Iraq's flouting of the UN authority and UNSCOM, and to Israel's long-standing occupation of the occupied territories and gross breach of UN resolutions, have, not surprisingly, gravely damaged the credibility of United States and European policy both towards the peace process and in the middle east more generally.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is implying that there is some equivalence between the Israeli and Iraqi Governments. Can he tell me when Saddam Hussein was last elected?

Mr. Soames: I am drawing no such comparison. The Israeli Government are democratically elected, whereas Saddam Hussein is the 1998 equivalent of Hitler. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that UN Security Council resolutions, passed in good faith, signed up to by world opinion and valid under international law, are treated totally differently in the two countries.
It is clear from Prime Minister Netanyahu's defiant resistance to calls for the fulfilment of commitments made under the Oslo accords that the only strong message coming through is that Israel will not incur any penalties for acting outside the law. This selective application of the standards of international law continues to provoke considerable anti-western feeling in the Arab world, and has done a very great deal to devalue the authority of the UN in the middle east.
One of the most glaring examples in respect of the middle east peace process is Israel's persistent, wilful and illegal defiance of international humanitarian law in respect of settlement building. The basis of the Oslo accord was land for peace yet, in a complete negation of the peace process, the Netanyahu Government continue to steal more Palestinian land. Their behaviour is monstrous and amounts to a high political crime. No other country would have been allowed to behave in such a manner. Israel needs to be far more vigorously and robustly reminded of its legal and, as yet, unfulfilled obligations.
Immediately after his election in 1996, Netanyahu published his Government guidelines, which made it clear that the new Government would continue—and, indeed,


accelerate—settlement building in all parts of the occupied territories, and particularly east Jerusalem. Despite repeated US calls for a time out on settlement building, it has continued.
In recent weeks, there have been reports that the Israeli Ministry of Housing plans to sell 138,000 housing units to the occupied territories in 1998–99, 11,000 of which are to be built in east Jerusalem. The reports suggest that all the infrastructure work has been completed at the settlement at Har Homa which, it will be remembered, was the project that provoked the crisis that led to the past 12 months of stagnation in the peace negotiations.
There has, in truth, never been a settlement freeze or slow-down. It is to be assumed, not just by local Palestinians, that at some point—in the interests of the peace process—settlement building will have to stop. There is no sign of that happening. That is a catastrophic and wholly unacceptable state of affairs.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I was one of the official observers of the Palestinian elections two years ago—a period of great hope—and I saw some of the settlements. Does the hon. Gentleman agree not only that they are illegal and provocative, but that they are being built on the tops of hills, destroying some of the most beautiful scenery I have seen in a long time? They are also awful architecturally.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The settlements represent not only a moral and political crime, but a high aesthetic crime, and are therefore trebly to be condemned.
It seems that the middle east peace process is in grave danger of losing its way. Certainly, those who are working for a genuine and just peace in the region are not being given the support they deserve by the international community. What better time for us to re-evaluate the European role in the middle east peace process than now, when Britain holds the presidency?
In 1980, the Venice declaration settled the basis for a European approach to a settlement in the middle east by recognising the Palestinian right to self-determination, and the right to existence and security of the state of Israel. The Venice declaration based itself on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and EU policy on the middle east has remained consistent—but wholly ineffective—on those positions of high principle.
During the years of the middle east peace process, it has been argued that the situation where the United States is seen to represent Israeli interests and the EU is seen to be overly sympathetic to Arab concerns will provide yet another obstacle to the achievement of a peace settlement. I believe that the problem lies elsewhere. In the year since the signing of the Oslo peace accord, the prevailing notion has been that peace must be negotiated between the parties.
Israel, supported by the US, has sought to move any peace formula away from the restrictions of international law. The argument goes that the restraints placed on the negotiating parties by the standards of international law on issues such as the status of the city of Jerusalem would put unacceptable limits on negotiations in the final status talks. It seems, rather, that the factor currently preventing

negotiations at all is the relentless Israeli colonisation of east Jerusalem, and the systematic depopulation of the eastern part of the city of its Arab inhabitants. This role of international law in conflict resolution is to apply legitimate restraints on the power of the occupying nation and to protect the rights of the occupied civilian population, pending a full settlement.
In a recent excellent interview with the Arab newspaper Al Hayat, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the British and European position on settlement building. He said:
The continued building of new settlements is illegal, and in direct conflict with the principle of land for peace on which the whole peace process is built. It damages the confidence of ordinary Palestinians in the process and undermines Israel's credibility as a negotiating partner.
He went on to confirm the British belief in the principle of land for peace. He said:
We support a negotiating process based on the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and the principles laid down at Madrid and Oslo. We believe this process offers the best chance of delivering a just exchange of land for peace and the secure and prosperous future for which the peoples of the region have waited for so long.
I unreservedly welcome those remarks, and I regard them as extremely helpful at a time when the central concept of land for peace and the respect for the rule of law seem to have become lost in a climate of mutual recrimination and political instability.
I also welcome the Prime Minister's remarks later in the interview, when he drew a distinction between the views of the United States and those of Europe on the middle east. One of the central criticisms levelled against European Governments by Arab commentators, rightly, is that European policies in the middle east seem to be so strongly identified with what are—thoroughly correctly—seen as flawed US objectives. I believe that a much more distinct role for the EU in the peace process is what should concern us today.
In recent years—in line with its new and ambitious policy in the Mediterranean region—Europe has looked again at how it might become more actively involved in the politics of the peace settlement. Since the signing of the Oslo agreement, the EU has been the single largest investor in the peace process, pledging a total of 1.68 billion ecu. Europe has also played a leading role in the regional economic development working group in the multilateral negotiations. Disappointingly and worryingly, however, Europe has, yet again, been unable—through a lack of will and leadership—to find a political role commensurate with the financial investment it is making in the peace process. It is therefore in a losing position.
In a report entitled "The role of the European Union in the peace process and its future assistance to the Middle East"—compiled in mid-January by Commissioner Marin, who is responsible for the Mediterranean region—the Commission set out to review EU policy towards the peace process. It states, for instance, that Israeli policies in the occupied territories are responsible for the serious decline in Palestinian living standards.
Between 1993 and 1996, the west bank and Gaza were under military closures for one fifth of all working days. Clearly, this is an issue of grave concern to European Governments, whose aim of boosting the economy to give the Palestinians some stake in the peace process is being thwarted again by these illegal military closures. During the periods of protracted crisis


that hit the peace process, the PNA turned to the EU to give emergency assistance to alleviate the budgetary deficit caused by the economic stagnation in the west bank and Gaza. That effectively means that Europe has been subsidising Israeli policies that it regards as illegal and which are clearly preventing any economic progress. That is clearly nonsense.
The report concludes:
if this situation continues, the European Union should still not evade its responsibilities to keep the peace process alive through its political and economic efforts.
The EU has reaffirmed its readiness to put all its political weight to the service of safeguarding the security of Israel. The security of the State of Israel and of its citizens is a central piece in the solution of the Middle East conflict. This is one of the reasons for the European support to Palestinian economic development. Contrary to claims that Israel's security demands stiff restrictions on the Palestinian economy, Palestinian economic development will be Israel's best security guarantee, both in the short and the long term.
The Palestinians must be allowed to exercise their right to economic development. Obstacles to trade and economic activity must be removed.
The EU's current aid programme to the peace process is due to end in 1998. That seems to be an appropriate time to consider a more politically active role for Europe in the peace process, and I welcome the comments in the report confirming the EU's responsibility toward the peace process. However, I believe that the report does not go far enough, because there is no reference to the role of international law, or to the protection of human rights that is an essential element of EU policy toward the middle east.
It was reported last week that, just before Prime Minister Netanyahu's departure for Washington, the Israel Cabinet endorsed maps that identified vital Israeli interests in the west bank, ahead of final status negotiations. It was said that those interests amounted to claims to more than 60 per cent. of the land on the west bank. If that is what is being envisaged by Israel as a formula for a permanent settlement, it is clear that there will be nothing left for us to negotiate. Despair, danger and political and military instability will, once again, overwhelm and drown all the vital efforts for peace.
The right of Israel and its citizens to live within secure borders is a principle that is accepted by all who are genuinely working to promote the peace process. However, all the issues that are proving so damaging to the peace process—settlements, military closures, discriminatory policies against Palestinian residents of east Jerusalem, the repeated closures of the west bank and Gaza and the siege of the Palestinian economy—are fundamental issues of human rights, which are protected under international humanitarian law. The highly regrettable instances of political violence, aimed at derailing the peace negotiations, are, in large part, the result of the despair and loss of hope generated by the lack of political progress. The European Union cannot afford to formulate policy toward the peace process that does not include the essential element—the profound and fundamental element—of respect for human rights.
When he replies, the Minister will have an elegant and beautifully written Foreign Office brief, which will tell us that the Government continue to make robust

approaches to Israel in respect of settlements and all other matters. They are not robust enough and, in the period when we hold the EU presidency, we look to the Government to try to reinvigorate the middle east peace process by galvanising support in Europe for a more proactive, energetic, realistic and honourable policy. Quite apart from the terrible events that may be about to unfold in Iraq, there will be no peace in the middle east without a proper, decent and honourable resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The current Government must do what the previous Government should have done but failed to do: they must stop hiding behind the Americans' coat tails and produce a more vigorous and robust European policy. I urge the Government to stop wringing their hands, and to do something about this appalling and wholly unacceptable situation.

Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on securing this debate. I did not fully recognise his description at the beginning of his speech of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in respect of the middle east; but, that said, he made some telling and timely comments about a tragedy that has gone on too long and needs to be dealt with.
This year sees the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the state of Israel, which was the realisation of a dream held by the Zionist movement since the latter years of the 19th century—indeed, its spiritual significance goes back much further. Set against the appalling suffering during the Nazi holocaust, the quest for a Jewish national home acquired far greater significance, but, although 1948 saw the birth of a state looking to the future, it also witnessed the start of yet another tragedy—the tragedy of the Palestinian people, which was rightly emphasised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. As one people gained a homeland, another people lost one. That tragedy has not been adequately addressed to this day.
In a real sense, those 50th anniversary celebrations could be made far more celebratory if they marked the bringing to an end of the middle east, conflict and the tackling of issues that have been left unattended for so long. It is not long—only two or three years—since that seemed possible. The Oslo framework and the declaration of principles in 1993 were a breakthrough in terms of the political situation in the middle east, and they were founded on the principle of land for peace. Israel was offered the opportunity to have security and to live within secure and recognised borders and the Palestinians were offered recognition, at long last, of their right to nationhood. Both sides were to engage in confidence-building measures that would allow progress towards addressing the more difficult issues, such as Jerusalem.
We could be optimistic in 1993, but we have to be more pessimistic today. As the Prime Minister of Israel constantly reminds us, terrorism has not been removed from the agenda. Israel is right to seek security, but we have to address to it the question it will have to face up to sooner or later: where does security come from? In a speech in Washington on 28 November, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) quoted


words that say far more than any of us in this Chamber can say. The words were spoken by the mother of an Israeli teenager who was killed by a terrorist bomb last July. She said:
When you put people under a border closure, when you humiliate, starve and suppress them, when you raze their villages and demolish houses, when they grow up in garbage and holding pens, that's what happens.
Those words were spoken not by a politician, but by someone who has experienced the reality of violence and terrorism in the middle east. It is by removing those causes of violence that we will find real peace in the middle east.
Instead, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex graphically described, illegal settlement building continues and Palestinians who have lived all their lives in east Jerusalem have to prove, on the most spurious of grounds, their right to remain in the city of their birth. Despite the aid given to the Palestine National Authority—including nearly 2 billion ecu of European aid—the living standards of Palestinians in Gaza have dropped by 30 per cent.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Marin memorandum, because that memorandum, which was published in January, points out significant ways in which European policy in the middle east can go forward. It also makes telling comments about the limits to what can be achieved by European aid and international aid in general to Palestine and the National Authority unless the crucial questions surrounding the peace process and issues of human rights are tackled.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to the effect of closures in the west bank and the Gaza strip. The Marin memorandum has the following to say on the subject:
Each terrorist attack has automatically been followed by tight and prolonged closures of the West Bank and Gaza Strip which are described by Israel as security measures but perceived as collective punishment by the Palestinian population. For the period 1993–1996, the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been under closure over one fifth (21 per cent.) of the effective working days: 233 effective closure days of the 1,108 potential working days. The situation has caused a severe Palestinian economic decline. So severe that it has far more than invalidated the international donors' efforts.
That puts the point well: we must remove the causes of the problems and break through the impasse in the peace process. International aid cannot be a substitute for the peace process; it can only complement it.
The Marin memorandum illustrates that, while the United States' policy will inevitably remain pivotal in brokering a settlement in the middle east, the European Union can and should play a much more dynamic role than it has in the past. We discussed in the House last year the association agreement between Israel and the EU; that agreement and various other relevant documents contain human rights clauses. We have a right to ask how far they are being monitored and being put into effect.
I welcome the clear statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that settlement building is illegal. Many statements have been made, both by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to the effect that the interim agreements need to be implemented. The Oslo framework, although vague in

many areas, was not vague on timetables or on the interim talks and interim agreements. Those timetables have not been followed.
It is right that the international community should make it fairly clear to the Netanyahu Government that we expect the interim agreements to be followed, we expect the redeployment of Israeli troops to take place and we expect that redeployment to be meaningful, real and substantial. Talking about the figure of 9 per cent. does nothing to advance the peace process. Those redeployments have to be substantial if they are to contribute to peace.
This is the 50th anniversary of the state of Israel. It is a time when people will inevitably look back, but it is important that when we look back, and when the Israelis and Palestinians look back, it is not in a spirit of blame, but in a spirit of understanding—understanding that can guide us where we go from here. As Israel does that, it should understand the need for Palestinian national rights to be recognised today. It should understand the importance of bringing an end to settlement building and collective punishment.
Israel must understand that, for Palestinians, whether they live in the occupied territories or outside, the memories and realities of Deir Yassin, Tel-al'Zataar, Sabra and Shatilla are as graphic and as strongly felt as Israeli memories of Mahalot, Kiriat Shimona and the Jerusalem bombings. When Israel and the Israeli Government understand that, the inevitable conclusion will be that the Oslo process, which was started so bravely not so many years ago, needs to be given added emphasis. The ball is firmly in the court of the Israeli Government. They could implement the interim agreements, move to final status talks as soon as they can and tackle the problem that has been, and will remain, the cornerstone of the middle east problem until it is sorted out: Palestinian rights.

Mr. James Clappison: I join in the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on securing this timely debate on an important subject. I congratulate him on taking us on an authoritative gallop through the relevant parts of international law and international history.
I know that my hon. Friend, who is a fair-minded person, knows that I could equally well select other aspects of international law or international history. Those aspects could include the hostility of the Arab states to Israel, the acts of terrorism against Israel and the attempts to partition Palestine and divide it between the Palestinians and the Israelis, going back not just to the beginning of the founding of the state of Israel, but to the inter-war period and the Balfour declaration. However, there is not much point in doing that.
Although my hon. Friend's sympathies have a different starting point from mine, I think that we arrive at the same conclusion: the need for firm, robust and unflinching support for the peace process. In today's world, that is the only way forward and the only way that peace will be achieved. I accept that these are difficult times for the peace process, for a number of reasons.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned Israel's democratic credentials. We would all do well to remember—including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield


(Mr. Burden), when he speaks about the Israeli Government and what they should do—that Israel is a democracy. However controversial its leadership or its policies may be, we must face the fact that its leadership is elected by the people of Israel. We must keep that fact at the forefront of our minds as we consider this subject.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend dwelt extensively on one aspect of the peace process formula: justice for the Palestinian people. It was entirely fair of him to do so, and that issue must also be kept at the forefront of our minds. It is understandable that my hon. Friend did not touch as much on the other part of the peace formula, which is supported by this Government as it was by the previous Government: security for the people of Israel. We must address that subject.
I am under no illusions: there is huge support for peace in Israel, but there is also an understandable demand for security. When the security considerations have been properly addressed, the prospects for peace will be that much better, but the people of Israel want security. It would be deeply unrealistic of us not to expect Israeli public opinion to be affected by bombs on buses, bombs in crowded shopping centres and incidents such as that at Kiriat Shemona, which the hon. Member for Northfield mentioned. When Israel embarks on a peace process, extends the hand of friendship and shows a willingness to make concessions, it would be deeply unrealistic not to expect Israeli public opinion to be affected when the bombs continue.
I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex when he says that the political violence, as he described it, was born out of frustration at the lack of progress. I do not think that it was born out of frustration at the lack of progress; I think that the intention was to derail the progress that was being made. The violence was carried out by deluded people with wicked masters and their objective was to derail the peace process. The purpose of our diplomacy and of the European Union and the United States is to seek to overcome the obstacles that those people are putting in the way of the peace process through their violence.
My hon. Friend made certain requests of the Minister of State; I shall make some others. I want the Government to consider the security component of the peace process formula. When the Minister of State speaks to the Palestinians and other Arab leaders—I know that he already has—will he emphasise the need to address the subject of Israel's legitimate security concerns? Will he ensure that a firm and consistent message of support for peace and the right of Israel to exist comes from the Palestinian leadership—Chairman Arafat and the Palestine National Authority?
I know that the Minister of State has been discussing certain articles of the Palestinian national covenant with the Palestinian leadership and has sought clarification about what has been repealed. I know that the Minister has been asking for a list; it would be helpful if he could tell us a bit about it and give us definite information that certain articles have been repealed.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are limitations, as the Government have found in Northern Ireland, to any state's ability to stop the determined terrorist? Does he further accept that to some extent the Israeli Government

are demanding of the Palestine National Authority that they follow what has been called the Algerian route? The route that the Algerian Government have taken to try to deal with terrorism has proved counter-productive, yet the Israeli Government are suggesting that the Palestine National Authority take precisely such extreme measures, although they have proved ineffective in other places and have simply stoked up a violent situation. The Israeli Government must recognise that security comes from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a very brief debate and that is a very long intervention.

Mr. Clappison: I am not sure that I would recommend anyone to go down the Algerian route, but credit where credit is due—the Palestine National Authority have taken some actions recently that are consistent with taking on the forces of terrorism. I should like them to do far more, and to do it conspicuously, with a background of a consistent message in favour of peace, in favour of the right of Israel to exist and against terrorism. The overall answer to the hon. Lady is that we need to build up the confidence of the Israeli people about their security and the good faith of those with whom they are negotiating.
May I ask the Minister to take up one other small point, which I know he has taken up—to his credit? He knows that Israeli public opinion takes a close interest in the fate of missing Israeli service men. So do many people in this country, including some of my constituents, who have written to me. I was grateful for the reply that the Minister gave to a letter from one of my young constituents from Borehamwood, saying that he had not forgotten the Israeli service men, that he was continuing to take up their case, and that he had recently met the families of Ron Arad and Zachary Baumel. I congratulate the Minister on taking that interest and I hope that he will take it further, as it is another factor that will help to build up the confidence of the Israeli people.
What about the role of Europe, which my hon. Friend mentioned? I disagree with him slightly on that. I think that the role of Europe should complement that of the United States. Any objective observer would have to agree that the United States is making vigorous efforts to procure peace in the middle east, against a difficult background. It should be the role of Europe to support those efforts. I hope, that in our presidency of the EU, we will focus on making the efforts of Europe complement those of the US.
I strongly support European economic assistance to the region, particularly to the Palestinians. My hon. Friend made an entirely fair point about the need to improve the standard of living of the Palestinians and to give them a greater interest in the success of the peace process. That is a legitimate objective, and I am happy with Europe pursuing it. I am slightly less happy with a more advanced foreign policy on the part of Europe, given current European political structures. I have reservations on various grounds about Europe pursuing that role. Notwithstanding those hesitations, I urge the Minister to give consideration to what Europe can do to get the multilateral track of the peace process going. I know that that is a difficult issue.
These are difficult times. We have different sympathies and different interpretations of the history of the region. Everyone present in the Chamber may have a different


interpretation of recent middle eastern history, but perhaps we can all join in giving support on a bipartisan basis to the peace process, being realistic about it, not expecting dramatic progress—far from it—but maintaining consistent and unflinching support for that process, however difficult it may be, and trying to understand the problems and concerns of both sides and to build their confidence in the peace process. It is well worth making European support for the peace process at this difficult time one of the main objectives of our EU presidency.

Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). His comments will be warmly welcomed by many people in this country and abroad.
The middle east is, of course, much wider than the focus of our debate. It is important to put the issue in context. There is an Israel-Syria track to the negotiations and there are the unresolved problems of the internal politics of Lebanon. Recent events there could signify the beginnings of a resumption of the tragic civil war that caused so many problems to the people of Lebanon.
Apart from Israel and the Palestine National Authority, no states in the region conduct democratic elections in the sense that they would be understood in western Europe, the United States or many other parts of the world. There are swathes of the middle east where women have virtually no rights, where they are not allowed to drive cars and where they are not allowed to vote.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to the baleful influence of the Zionist lobby. Perhaps we should also point out the baleful influence of what might be called an Arab lobby among those who do not comment on those issues and simply dismiss them. If we have universal standards of human rights and support for democracy, they should apply also in Saudi Arabia and throughout the middle east.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is proper for us to expect even higher standards of democracies and particularly for us to expect democracies not to flout international law?

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that intervention, as it brings me to my next point. The loudest, most vocal and strongest critics of the Netanyahu Government are Israelis. If one speaks to people in Peace Now, in Meretz and throughout Israeli society, one hears what high hopes they had when Yitzhak Rabin took that brave step to meet Arafat, to engage in discussion and ultimately to sign the Oslo process agreement, culminating in the handshake in Washington. That was incredibly controversial in Israeli society and, tragically, Rabin paid for his bravery with his life, killed by a fellow Israeli.
As has been said, it is the extremists who are determined to destroy the process. There are extremists on both sides: the people responsible for the massacre in the mosque in Hebron—I have been there and seen that place—and the people responsible for the bombings in Tel Aviv. They have an agenda, which is to destroy the efforts of moderates and people with vision to go forward in the peace process. To some extent, they have been successful.
I was with my hon. Friend the Minister in Israel, Gaza, Hebron and Bethlehem in December 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was also on the trip. It was a joint Labour friends of Israel and Labour middle east council delegation. During our visit, we met Shimon Peres—one month after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We also met Yasser Arafat. At that time there was real hope of progress. The Palestinian election was due to be held in January 1996. There was a genuine possibility that the process would go forward.
Unfortunately, Mr. Peres lost the Israeli election. That is what happens in democracies. Democracies do not always give the solution that those outside want. The Israeli people chose to elect a Government who said that they would give greater emphasis to security. Despite all the difficulties, that Government have said that they remain committed to the Oslo process. They signed agreements for the withdrawal from Hebron and there was an important meeting in January 1997 between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat at which they agreed a protocol.
Many criticisms have been made of Israel, but it is important to note for the record that the difficulties do not lie entirely on the Israeli side. The Arafat-Netanyahu document was associated with a note for the record prepared by the United States ambassador in the region, Dennis Ross. The note lists various obligations that the two leaders undertook to fulfil as part of the process. They included: Israeli compliance with the terms of the agreement for the first stage of redeployment from the west bank, the release of Palestinian women prisoners and the resumption of negotiations. Israel may be criticised for some of its actions, but the fact is that Palestinian women prisoners have been released and there has been a limited withdrawal through the Hebron process. The Oslo agreement is still supported formally by the Israeli Government.
The Palestinians also agreed to fulfil several obligations. They included: amending the covenant, taking steps to combat terrorism, reducing the size of the Palestinian police force and—a very controversial issue—agreeing what would happen to the Palestinian institutions that operate outside the Palestinian area of authority. An examination of the progress made by the Palestinians subsequent to that agreement could lead to strong criticisms of that quarter. Mr. Arafat sent letters to President Clinton and to our Prime Minister, but the Palestine National Authority have not yet amended the covenant, which comprises many clauses and phrases that I suspect would be offensive to every hon. Member—and they are certainly regarded as such by Israeli public opinion.
The problems that we face today pose very serious questions about how we can influence events in areas of conflict from outside. We know from our own experience that it is not possible to impose solutions to any conflict from outside a state. Conflict resolution necessitates an internal process—although actors from outside may assist in reaching that resolution.
The European Union already makes large financial contributions to Gaza and for other aspects of development in Palestinian areas in an attempt to facilitate further middle east dialogue. I am sure that the European Union will continue to make those constructive contributions under the British presidency. However, ultimately, Britain and the


other European Union states will not be able to impose any solutions in the middle east—especially in light of the fact that the Israeli Government are elected democratically. Israeli public opinion will determine the outcome of the next Israeli elections, which we hope will lead to an acceleration of the peace process.
The conflict in the middle east has other, wider aspects. There are two synagogues, two mosques and several other places of worship, including gurdwaras and Hindu temples, in my constituency. I am concerned about attempts by extremist groups from either community to bring extremist politics into this country. All communities in the United Kingdom, regardless of religion, must live together in harmony. They must respect our laws, all aspects of which apply equally. I hope that that approach will act as a model for tolerance and understanding throughout the middle east.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on his fine and instructive speech. I have no Arab or Jewish connections and I have no particular axe to grind, but I have both Arab and Israeli friends who feel very much as I do about the middle east peace process. Therefore, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate.
My friends and I care so much about this subject that, in 1993, in France, we opened a bottle of champagne and planted an olive tree to celebrate the Oslo accord.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Did the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex provide the champagne?

Dr. Tonge: No, he did not. He was not with me at the time.
The Oslo accord enshrined the principles that should have led to the creation of a Palestinian state. It acknowledged
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
and recognised that Israel's armed forces must withdraw from occupied territories.
My olive tree survives and thrives, but the Oslo accord fell on stony ground—a product of the international community's turning a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinian peoples and a ringing endorsement of Israel's capacity to mock international law and agreements. How long can we stand by and watch Israel do that? New settlements have been built in east Jerusalem and, more recently, Israel's housing ministry spokesman, Mosh Eilat, announced that a further 30,000 new homes would be built in those settlements by 2020.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: As the hon. Lady is talking about experiences, will she detail the times that she has travelled to Israel—as I have—and to Palestine to explore the issues at first hand?

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I said at the beginning of my speech that I have no particular axe to grind. I am not a member of friends of Israel or friends of Palestine. I have—and will always have—a totally neutral point of view, but I believe that my views are entitled to be heard.
Those initiatives are contrary to the spirit of the Oslo accord.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: rose—

Dr. Tonge: I shall not give way again.
The initiatives are also contrary to the principle of land for peace. They are, in essence, a reflection of an Israeli Government who are opposed to peace and who are determined to make a Palestinian state a pipe dream. We must ask how long we can allow them to continue.
The Palestinians are not the only ones to see their agreements broken. Israel recently broke its trade agreement with the European Union by exporting orange juice to Europe—it may sound quite amusing—labelled "Product of Israel" that was not an Israeli product. Israel also stands accused of exporting as products of Israel goods that are made in the settlements. Israel has violated an international agreement, the purpose of which was to strengthen economic development in order to underpin the peace process through economic growth and stability.
How long must Palestinians, Europeans, Americans, Israelis and all who are committed to the peace process endure the flagrant violation of international law by this and previous Israeli Governments? I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who said that we expect more of a democratically elected Government than we do of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein.
The latest United-States-bolstered piecemeal agreement regarding the further redeployment of Israeli troops from the occupied territories is bound to fail because it allows Israel to withdraw troops only once the Palestine National Authority have met all their security demands. That is another open invitation to Israel to place more and more exacting conditions on the PLA and, consequently, what is left of the peace process will continue to flounder. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, it is difficult for political organisations to keep control of all their members and terrorists.

Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I am about to finish, and then the hon. Gentleman can speak.
With the 50th anniversary of the creation of Israel and the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, we must ask how much longer we should tolerate Israel's violation of international law and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland. Surely Jewish people in Israel, more than any other people in the world, can understand the Palestinian predicament.

12 noon

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for the debate. I am sorry that this is not the longer debate that the issue justifies, but I hope that we shall be able to have such a debate before too long.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this year is the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel; but for the Palestinian people it has been 50 years without human, political and civil rights, which all agree they should have.
There are huge implications if the peace process fails, not just for the region but for the relationships of the international community with the Arab world. That is true not least because of our historical involvement in the region and because of the role of the international community in relation to the Oslo accords, which were underwritten by the West. They should not be regarded as


the possession of Israel, from which Netanyahu can pick and choose. They were internationally underwritten agreements in the context of UN Security Council resolutions, especially resolutions 242 and 338, but also a long list of previous resolutions which, time and again, have emphasised the need for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and for the political rights of the Palestinian people.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the parallels with Iraq. I do not want to compare the Iraqi and Israeli regimes, but it is important to recognise that people do see parallels. Sanctions against Iraq are justified on the ground that it does not comply with Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Caplin: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gerrard: No, I only have a little time and I want to use the opportunity to say something.
Sanctions against Iraq are justified on the ground of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. Is it surprising that people draw parallels when Israel has a nuclear weapons programme and when Mordecai Vanunu, who exposed it, is entering his 12th year in solitary confinement in Ashkelon prison, and when Israel continues not to comply with Security Council resolutions?
I do not want to dwell on the question of settlements, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and others talked at some length, or on what has happened in Jerusalem, whose status was supposed to be part of the final stages of the negotiations. Not only have Palestinians in occupied territories been affected, but the southern part of Lebanon is still occupied, and I cannot remember the last time there was any reference in the House to any sort of progress in negotiations between Israel and Syria. Within Israel, 70,000 Arabs live in 176 unrecognised villages with no basic services, water, sanitation or electricity. They are supposed to be Israeli citizens, yet they are denied basic services, with the clear intention of forcing them from their lands.
Before Netanyahu's recent visit to the United States, he visited an Israeli air force base to take delivery of the first two F151 fighter bombers to arrive. Hours before he left, the US announced a $1.4 billion loan for Israel, and that was before a visit that was billed as the US putting pressure on Israel. The clear message was that President Clinton did not have the stomach for a fight with Netanyahu and his allies in the American Congress.
I perfectly understand the points made by some hon. Members about the other side of the equation and the need for security. However, at a recent meeting, Yasser Arafat gave President Clinton a letter clearly detailing the specific articles of the Palestinian covenant that have been changed. It was read by James Rubin at a press briefing, and stated:
The Palestinian National Council's resolution … in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the PLO commitment to recognise and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect … These changes will be reflected in any official publication of the charter".
US policy is paralysed in terms of any real influence on Israeli policy, yet it is crystal clear that, without changes in Israeli policy, the peace process will fail.
At the moment, there are some extremely worrying signs. I read in a recent press report of a clash in Bethlehem when Israeli soldiers fired tear gas at Palestinian boys who were throwing stones. When the Palestinian police arrived, they aimed rifles at Israeli troops pursuing the stone throwers. The same thing had happened the day before in the same spot, and the same thing has happened in Gaza. With between 35,000 and 40,000 armed Palestinian police, we must be concerned about what is happening and the consequences of such clashes.
The peace process is clearly in serious trouble. When that process started, everyone emphasised the risks and the need for the inhabitants of the west bank and Gaza to see some change and some economic improvement in their conditions. That is not happening and mass disillusionment is setting in. We need greater pressure and a pro-active policy from the EU. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said, we simply cannot rely on the US having any sort of influence to bring about the changes in policy that are needed. If we do not continue to apply such pressure and to support the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people, we shall be guilty of contributing to the failure of the peace process.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I do not want to dwell on the points that have been made more than adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others. I simply want to focus on Britain's historic obligation, which is keenly felt in the Arab world. In a sense, it has remained unchanged since the Balfour declaration in 1917, which included these words:
it being understood that nothing be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
In 1922, the mandate that we accepted from the League of Nations stated:
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up permanent residence in Palestine.
The White Paper presented to the House in 1922 contained His Majesty's Government's view that at no time had they contemplated
as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.
In 1930, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald said that nothing should prejudice the civil rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. That was repeated in 1939 and 1947 by the then Foreign Secretary.
We have had an obligation to both communities. With the injustices that are happening now to the Palestinian community, it is time for the British Government to speak up for the underdogs, the Palestinian community, to ensure that they achieve their aims of statehood and can deal with the Israeli population in equality, and that both communities can have security.

Mr. David Faber: We have had an all too short but interesting and well-informed debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex


(Mr. Soames) on securing it at such an opportune moment, and on the typically robust and eloquent manner in which he introduced it.
As was pointed out by every hon. Member who spoke, we are at a critical moment in the middle east peace process, when, sadly, the wider region faces possible further conflict. Britain has a long and deep involvement in the middle east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) just said. We are inextricably bound with the region through history, responsibility and a shared interest in trade and, of course, security in the region.
The previous Government always made it clear that our aim was a lasting peace, accepted by all and founded on the principle of respect for international law, peace with security for Israel, and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinians. Therefore, we on the Conservative Benches warmly welcome the Government's stated continuing commitment to those principles and to the means by which the ultimate goal of a lasting peace can be achieved.
In May 1996, the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, said:
Britain has no blueprint for how a durable peace should be established. We are fighting no-one's corner. We are proud to call ourselves friends of all the people of the region.
That realisation and that commitment hold good today just as they did then, but we must be realistic and look at the situation that confronts us. As we heard today from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the process is in crisis and is in desperate need of impetus.
The recent visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat were at best disappointing and at worst retrograde, given that the Israeli Cabinet chose the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to issue their communiqué listing eight new areas of the west bank whose retention they now consider vital for their national interest.
Subsequently, Mrs. Albright, in her recent visit to the region, was rebuffed in her request for a "certificate of good progress" from the Palestinians—a document which presumably she hoped would provide helpful supporting evidence during her tour of the Gulf seeking support for action against Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex rightly referred to the detrimental effect that the lack of progress in the middle east peace process has had on Arab opinion with regard to action against Iraq.
On 17 December last year, the Minister told me in a written answer:
Seeking to re-inject momentum into the Middle East peace process will be a high priority during our Presidency.
We welcome that commitment and his recent visit to the region.
I echo my hon. Friend's disappointment that the Foreign Secretary—some nine months after becoming Foreign Secretary—having twice cancelled a visit to the region, has still not managed to get there himself. It would have been better had he visited before the start of the presidency. He would have had an opportunity to see and to hear from people on the ground. We look forward to his anticipated visit in the spring, and to the ministerial meeting that will be held in London in April.
At a time when the United States has failed to inject further momentum into the process, there is clearly a crucial role for Britain to play during our presidency.

We must recognise that expectations in the region concerning our own involvement are high. We have a well-earned reputation for even-handedness, and the quality of our contacts in the region are second to none. The period of our presidency is thus an ideal time to throw our weight behind the process, and to encourage the EU to do likewise.
Will the Minister tell us just a little about the so-called Marin memorandum, which we heard about this morning, which clearly calls for a far more active EU role throughout all levels of the process? His noble Friend has described it as "an internal working document". What is its current status? While we hold the presidency of the EU, do we support the memorandum's proposals? How is it suggested that they should be put into effect?
In 1996, the previous Government warmly welcomed the decision of the Palestinian National Council to amend the Palestinian covenant, which honoured a commitment made in the Oslo letters of recognition, and was welcomed at the time by both the United States Government and Mr. Perez. Will the Minister therefore tell us a little more about the letter, of which we heard this morning, that Mr. Arafat sent last month to the Prime Minister, and which was subsequently passed on to President Clinton? The Israeli Government consider the move to be "insufficient", but it would be helpful to have the Minister's views of its significance in the overall peace process.
In the written answer to which I referred, the Minister also said:
We are anxious to see existing agreements implemented in full.
The House will know that, under the Oslo accords and the subsequent Hebron agreement, the territory of the west bank is, as my hon. Friend described, divided into three zones. Zone A, under complete Palestinian civilian and military control, currently represents just 3 per cent. of the territory—the urban centres. Zone B, under Palestinian civilian control but Israeli security control, now accounts for 27 per cent. The remaining 70 per cent., zone C, remains under full Israeli civilian and military control.
At Oslo, the Palestinians accepted that Jerusalem and the settlements, representing some 9 per cent. of land, would be left to final status talks, but that still leaves some 91 per cent. of land in the west bank to come under Palestinian control during the interim period. Under the Hebron agreement, there were to be three instalments of further withdrawals: the first by 7 March last year, the second by 7 September, and the third by the middle of this year, but, as the House well knows, none of those further withdrawals has taken place.
On 7 March last year, the Israeli Government made a renewed offer, which was turned down by the Palestinians, and we have heard this morning that the current Israeli proposal is for a single redeployment of some 6 to 8 per cent. to make up for the two that have been missed, prior to an immediate jump to final status talks.
The United States has now made a further suggestion that some 10 to 14 per cent. be moved from zone C to zone B, and a further 10 per cent. from zone B to zone A. However, even that proposal is still subject to renegotiation and would be phased over three to five instalments. The so-called Sharon map to which my hon. Friend referred, which now appears to be the Israeli


Government's blueprint, allows for an absolute maximum of 35 per cent. of the west bank to have been redeployed, even after final status talks.
The Minister's recent visit of the region sadly coincided with the Israeli Cabinet's declaration that large sections of the west bank were vital to Israel's national interest.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): That was not my fault.

Mr. Faber: It was not the Minister's fault, as he rightly says. What discussions did he have about the announcement at the time? Did he seek or receive assurances on future redeployment during his visit?
The Israeli Cabinet's declaration effectively adds large sections of the west bank to the growing list of issues that the Israeli Government claim are not open to renegotiation, even in final status talks, and all the time, as we heard this morning, the stalemate over redeployment and other issues continues to be exacerbated and soured by the current status of, and future plans for, Israeli settlements.
Israel's unrelenting programme of enlarging its settlements proceeds unabated, in spite of worldwide criticism and condemnation. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned the Israeli Housing Ministry's confirmation that it plans to double the current settler population by 2020 by building 30,000 new homes, half of them in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
As the House will know, the Conservative Government always regarded the settlements as illegal, and therefore we naturally welcome the strong words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and, indeed, the Minister himself in condemning settlement building. What progress, if any, has he made in talks with the Israeli Government on this matter?
Among other priorities that the Minister highlighted was
a mechanism to institutionalise security co-operation and handle crises … and engaging Israel in a dialogue on ways of removing obstacles to Palestinian economic development."—[Official Report, 17 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 182.]
What progress has he made in those regards?
We all recognise why Israel is so preoccupied with security. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) quite rightly told us of the problems, and the appalling scenes that we saw on television last year serve as a reminder that the battle against terrorism is far from won.
Peace can flourish only in a climate of trust and confidence. We need to strike a balance. The closure policy has caused widespread resentment and economic suffering. It has come to be perceived as a collective punishment against 2 million Palestinians living in the west bank and Gaza, and has had an appalling effect on the Palestinian way of life. A report on 1996 by the United Nations special co-ordinator's office noted as direct results of the policy a 57.8 per cent. increase in unemployment in the west bank and Gaza; a 23 per cent. drop in aggregate income; and a fall in real wages of 20 per cent. since 1995. Most worrying of all, it highlighted an increase in child labour in the region.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimates that there has been a 40 per cent. decline in overall living standards since the Oslo accords. Access to health care has been reduced, students have been unable to get to their universities, and Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, no longer have freedom of access to their holy sites.
We have had a short but informative debate. There were other issues that I had hoped to raise. The Minister has mentioned previously his efforts in respect of the Gaza air and sea ports, transit arrangements between the west bank and Gaza and the permanent security committee he mentioned in a speech in Washington last year. We have also heard about the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. We would be interested to know about reported comments that the Israelis may accept, albeit conditionally, resolution 425. We warmly welcome the priority that the Government are giving to reinvigorating the middle east peace process during their presidency. They may be sure that, during their brief tenure, they will have our support in doing that.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on raising this issue and thank him for the way in which he made his comments about Iraq, the nature of its regime and the need for it to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions.
One constant theme ran through the debate. Whatever the perspective—or, indeed, prejudice—of hon. Members, it is clear that they are all keen to see progress in the peace process. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex talked about the principles of land for peace, and was right to say that that is the underpinning notion that will enable us to make progress. Every hon. Member who spoke mentioned the intimate link between political, social and economic progress and security. It is self-evident that progress along all those lines is in the interests of the people of Israel, of Palestine and of the whole region. There should be no question but that there is a joint agenda and a set of common interests. Our political task is to ensure that we put some life back into the peace process and make progress.
Perhaps I can answer some of the points that were raised. We hold the view—which was held, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) said, by the previous Government—that to make progress, there needs to be a balance of action in terms of the land for peace principle. That means further redeployment in line with previous agreements, confidence-building measures and a commitment to security.
Let me take security first. It is axiomatic that we cannot have peace without security. Whether one is an Israeli or a Palestinian, that is self-evident. One of the encouraging aspects of my recent visit to Israel and the occupied territories was the extent to which Palestinians recognised that their political progress depends on the security of the people of Israel. We have taken action to help with security.
The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned our security proposals. We have asked special envoy Ambassador Moratinos to meet Dr. Erekat of the Palestine National Authority over the next few days to discuss what further


measures we can take to help the Palestinians to deliver their security promises. I have two more points on security. First, to reinforce my earlier point, we believe that the Palestinians are making a genuine effort on security. That should be put on record. That view is currently also held by the American Administration. Secondly, if we can assist in the process, it is a meaningful contribution that Europe can make the peace process. We will do all that we can to help on security issues.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and others mentioned the Palestinian charter. I raised that in my recent meetings with President Arafat. As a result, he wrote to the Prime Minister setting out the action taken by the Palestine National Council. It is important to put it on record that we believe that that was a significant letter. He set out the clauses of the charter that had been repealed and amended and made it clear that the charter is now seen as in line with the commitments and principles of the Oslo accord. We welcome the fact that Secretary of State Albright has also welcomed those assurances and believes that the charter is no longer a stumbling block to the peace process. We see that as a significant step forward and welcome it.
On further redeployments, I heard the strong words of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about how the map of the west bank is still distorted in a way that does not reflect the wishes that were around at the time of the Oslo accord. We have been very clear that there must be further meaningful redeployments. We are in line with the Hebron agreements. Such further meaningful redeployments must be of a size that can give the Palestinians confidence in the process and show them that progress is being made.
We have also taken every opportunity to condemn the expansion of settlements. As the hon. Member for Westbury noted, the previous Administration rightly said that the settlements were in breach of international law. We have said that not only on behalf of the UK Government but on behalf of the EU presidency. If I can personally take some credit, I think that I am still the only European Minister to have visited Har Homa and to have made the point there that the Government disagree strongly with settlement building.
As hon. Members have said, that settlement shows the extent to which the character of Jerusalem and the surrounding area are being significantly changed. That is

why we have supported the notion of time out: that neither side should take steps that pre-empt the final status discussions. A strong criticism of settlements is that they distort the final status discussions and make it difficult for real negotiations to take place in line with the Oslo accords.
We are concerned about the way in which the character and nature of east Jerusalem is being changed. It should not be changed prior to the final status negotiations. It is an area in which Palestinian life and the Palestinian community are being badly affected by decisions taken by the Israeli Government.
The hon. Member for Westbury asked about economic and confidence-building measures. During my recent visit to Israel, I chaired the EU-Israel dialogue on economic matters. We gave strong priority to certain economic measures that have to be taken on Gaza airport and port, on its industrial estate and on safe passage, which is crucial for economic development. As several hon. Members said, the Palestinians must feel an economic commitment to the process of peace. Since Oslo, there has been a decline of more than 30 per cent. in Palestinian living standards. It is impossible to sell peace if people are suffering such reductions in living standards.
The key theme of the debate has been to ask us in our presidency to take an active role in the middle east peace process. The action that we have taken so far on economic measures and security, our close liaison with Washington, the messages that we have delivered and the positions that we have taken show the extent to which under our presidency the European Union will play a strong and active role. We are determined to do that during the short six months of our European Union presidency.
Our role during our presidency will not be to compete with the United States. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex knows Arab countries and their leaders extremely well. They do not want the European Union to play a competitive role. They want Europe to help the process, to play a complementary role and to support the objectives of land for peace and the Oslo accords. We are determined to play that role effectively. I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we will be active during our six-months presidency of the European Union.
We all have an interest in peace. We shall work for peace. Peace in the middle east is in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and all the people living in the region.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Mr. Llew Smith: This debate is about a sad saga, of which successive Governments cannot be proud. The lives of thousands of British service men and medical auxiliaries have been ruined because politicians wanted to satisfy their egos by building atomic bombs that they claimed were part of our national defence. They were tested thousands of miles away in Australia, Nevada and small Pacific islands without the permission of the indigenous people. Successive Governments have seen fit to use other people's backyards to test nuclear weapons. That surely cannot be right.
I have provided the Minister with a list of questions, and I have enough confidence in him to know that he will answer them in detail. In 1957, the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, told the House:
The present and foreseeable hazards, including genetic effects, from external radiation due to fall-out from the test explosions of nuclear weapons, fired at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds, are considered to be negligible."—[Official Report, 5 March 1957; Vol. 566, c. 178.]
That was, to say the least, a false statement.
I have raised this matter because of the concerns of the British nuclear test veterans, who were victims of the tests that were conducted on Christmas Island in 1958–59. They believe, as I do, that their ill health was caused by radiation and the toxic pesticide DDT that was used 40 years ago. I am sure that the Minister will accept that those service men did not go to those Pacific islands for a holiday in the sun. They went as loyal British soldiers and as medical auxiliaries, and they deserve better than to be fobbed off for all these years.
Ministerial denials of responsibility were not believed by the European Commission of Human Rights, to which the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association took its case on behalf of some of the 22,000 veterans who witnessed atomic tests in the Pacific in 1958. On 27 January 1997, the British Government were found guilty: the commission found that they had violated article 6(i) and article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and that the atomic veterans had established a reasonable basis for their anxiety and concern that they had been subjected to radiation experimentation by their own Government. It further found that the Government's contention that inanimate dummies, not live service men, had been exposed to radiation was unconvincing.
Deplorably, the Conservative Government refused to honour the commission's recommendations. I trust that this Government, under new Labour, will reverse that decision.
One of the first parliamentary questions that I asked when I entered the House in 1992 was what information the Government had received from the American Government about the public hearings held in Vegas, which is near the Nevada site where Britain tested its nuclear bombs from the early 1960s to just a few years ago. The hearings dealt with the environmental and radioactive contamination at the site from British bombs. The reply to my question was, "None."
If Britain were forced to pay the proper clean-up costs for testing Polaris and Trident warheads in the desert lands of the Navajo indians, it would run to hundreds of millions of pounds. I suspect that the Government have not allowed for that in their nuclear defence budget.
Many journalists, such as Rob Edwards in the New Scientist and Alan Rimmer, Dean Rousewell and David Brown in the Sunday People, should be congratulated on their investigative work, which has been reported extensively in the press recently.
There is still considerable toxic contamination on Christmas Island. I am totally unconvinced by the Minister's written replies to me on this issue. He asserts:
there is no radioactive contamination which would present a hazard to the inhabitants of Christmas Island."—[0fficial Report, 17 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 64.]
The specific questions that I want the Minister to answer have been provided by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. First, do the Government agree that they owe a duty of care to nuclear veterans and their families? Secondly, does the review of the veterans' pension scheme, as proposed by the Defence Minister, include a review of the new evidence of radiogenic injury to veterans of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme that is emerging from the Dundee database study? Thirdly, are the Government aware of the Dundee study? If so, will the Minister comment on that study, and on the peer support of Dr. David Hole, director of the west of Scotland cancer surveillance project?
Fourthly, is the Minister aware of the undertakings of the National Radiological Protection Board's spokesperson on the "Frontline Scotland" programme that the Dundee university medical school researcher should have access to the updated database held by the NRPB for her secondary analysis? What action will the Minister take to ensure that such access is provided?
Fifthly, does the Minister agree that more than 22,000 men who were sent to the nuclear weapons test, and their families, unfortunately constitute a most important study group for cancer research, and that appropriate funds should be made available for that research?
Sixthly, an agreement reached in 1962 between the United Kingdom and United States Governments allowed the US Government to carry out nuclear weapons testing no more than 25 miles and no less than five miles from Christmas Island between April and July 1962. During that period, 28 nuclear explosions took place, in which 300 British service men participated. The US Government stated that they would indemnify Her Majesty's Government as a result of claims for compensation by British service men arising out of those tests. Do the Government agree that UK participants qualify for US compensation under that agreement?
Seventhly, the Government rely on the final NRPB report adopted in November 1993, which found that, statistically, UK veterans were not harmed by their participation in the Australian or Pacific nuclear tests. However, in December 1993, the UK Government signed an agreement with Australia for payment of £20 million sterling to the Australian Government for the settlement of all claims that arise out of the death or injury of any person, excluding UK veterans, as a result of the United Kingdom's experimental nuclear test programme in Australia.
Will the Government explain the rationale for handing over £20 million of taxpayers' money to fund compensation for Australian victims of nuclear tests, including Australian veterans, while maintaining that


there is no evidence that the UK service men who participated in the same Australian tests were harmed? That does not make sense to me.
Let me now comment on research conducted by Sue Roff of the Dundee centre for medical study. I shall deal first with her research relating to death certificates. A total of 22,000 service men and medical auxiliaries could now be regarded as test veterans, of whom 10 per cent.—2,200—were members of the association. Of those 2,200, 600 have died, and approximately 455 death certificates have been sent to the association. Two thirds of those 455 veterans had died of cancer, compared to between a quarter and a third of the general population.
Some may suggest that those people joined the association because they wanted pensions or compensation, but that is not so. Only two thirds of the widows of the victims supplied the association with death certificates, which does not seem to imply that, when their loved ones died, they were preoccupied with the question of compensation.
The cancers that caused the deaths were on the list of 15 cancers that American legislation stipulates as eligible for compensation. Medical science recognises those 15 cancers as potentially radiogenic. The conclusion tentatively reached in the study is that veterans have at least a double chance of dying of a radiogenic cancer. The average age of those who died was 55, compared with a figure of between 65 and 70 for the general population. There seems to be strong evidence of radiation-induced cancer deaths, because they all fall into those 15 categories.
If we took a sample of 2,200 former Members of the House of Commons and found that 600 were dead, it is very unlikely that the patterns of death would be the same as that of this group of nuclear veterans. The pattern of coal-mining deaths would be different again. Each of the three groups is subject to specific occupational hazards. The nuclear veterans suffered radiation hazards; coal miners suffer bronchial hazards. I would not dare to suggest what Members of Parliament are likely to die of.
The other aspect of Dr. Roff's study concerned the veterans who were still alive. The conclusions reached so far are, to say the least, alarming, not just for the immediate families of the veterans who died, but for their children and grandchildren. The results of the study of the health of the surviving veterans and their children and grandchildren will be reported before Easter, but the preliminary analysis shows a clear pattern of radiation injury in the veterans, their children and their grandchildren. Their deaths and injuries were highlighted vividly in The People some weeks ago.
I was disappointed by the Minister's dismissive reply to questions about Dr. Roff's research. He said:
There is no substantial evidence in her work which would undermine in any way our total confidence in the conclusions of the report published by the National Radiological Protection Board in 1993."—[Official Report, 22 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 625.]
I would have expected such a response from a Conservative Minister, but not from a Minister who obviously epitomises all that is good about new Labour.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: I find this difficult to understand. When people wrote to the Ministry a few years ago, the Ministry denied that dosimeters had been issued. When photographic evidence was provided,

the Ministry said that the reason was not related to any risk that might be incurred; it said that the intention had been to make a film for training purposes, to show people what the meters looked like. This has been a catalogue of misinformation and deceit from day one. The trouble is that the small number of veterans who went down the dirty path were used as a control group.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The same has happened on other occasions and in other instances. I tabled dozens of questions about problems relating to Gulf war syndrome and organophosphates, but was told by the then Government that there had been no problem, and that organophosphates had not been used. Some months later, however, the Government had to make a statement saying that I had been misled.
The Minister should bear in mind the fact that Roff is using the methodology that has frequently been used in other studies conducted by the same people who undertook the MOD studies. Her methodology is perfectly legitimate, but it calls into question the validity of the findings of major studies using another methodology. That is a common experience in medical and scientific research; what is less common is the refusal of major Government agencies to accept the implications of the findings. That is why today's debate is taking place.
Let me remind the Minister what was written in a confidential document—declassified by his own Department on 26 January 1985—by the rear admiral who was in charge of Britain's first atomic bomb in 1951. In a memorandum to Vice-Admiral Brooking, he wrote:
radiological safety must be one of the chief concerns of the naval commander … I believe that all Government servants are in fact entitled to compensation for injury on duty".
I agree, and I trust that the Minister agrees.
In March 1991, the then Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, South ended his Adjournment debate on nuclear test veterans with the words
What the men need is justice. "—[Official Report, 20 March 1991; Vol.188, c. 377.]
That is just as true today. It is unforgivable that those men have had to wait seven long years, when so many have died painful deaths. The people—and, indeed, Parliament—deserve much better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The debate gives me two opportunities. First, it gives me the opportunity to record our appreciation of the work of service personnel—many doing their national service—who took part in our nuclear testing programme in Australia and the south Pacific. The atmospheric tests carried out in the 1950s were a major contribution to British development of our independent nuclear deterrent—not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) unfortunately claimed, for the sake of Ministers' egos, but as part of our national security effort.
Secondly, the debate gives me an opportunity to make clear to the House, and to those who will read the record, the facts of the matter with regard to the nuclear tests. I hope to answer most of my hon. Friend's questions in the time left to me, but I shall write to him about those that I cannot answer now.
Between 1952 and 1958, the United Kingdom conducted 21 nuclear tests in Australia and the Pacific. Those tests, which all took place in the atmosphere, ranged in yield from 1 kilotonne to 3 megatonnes. The purpose of the tests was to develop the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent—an aim which was achieved with distinction by the personnel who were involved.
In 1962, the United States conducted nuclear tests off Christmas Island, at which some United Kingdom service personnel were also present. It would be quite wrong to assert, as some have asserted, that the health of service men and other personnel who were attending the atmospheric tests was not an absolute priority. Formal and well documented procedures were in place to ensure the safety of personnel in Australia and at Christmas Island. A standard safety drill at all UK atmospheric tests was for personnel to be mustered at a safe distance and to be ordered to face away from the blast while covering their eyes with their hands. Those measures eliminated the risk of being blinded by the flash, and minimised the risk of injury from flying debris.
The vast majority of personnel who were present during tests were mustered in areas that were known to be safe from the effects of blast, heat and any prompt or residual radiation. At Christmas Island, for example, the muster points were in the areas of the main camp and the port, each of which was some 25 miles from the detonations.
The mass of evidence shows that the health and safety of the trial participants were regarded very seriously, and that a great deal of trouble was taken over radiological protection. In nuclear tests, the distance from the explosions was a major safety feature. The Monte Bello islands, Maralinga, and Christmas Island were all chosen as test sites because there was a great deal of space. I was slightly surprised by my hon. Friend's comments about choosing those locations. Because of that space, it was not necessary to provide universal personal monitoring for all participants. These safety judgments were borne out by real-time environmental monitoring.
While the vast majority of personnel were mustered well outside the range of the radiation effects, a small number of specialist staff who were required to be closer to monitor the test, could have been at risk. Those people, most of whom were technical staff from the Atomic Weapons Establishment, and who were very much closer to the detonations, were sheltered. Any exposure was monitored, and, if necessary, decontamination took place. The same monitoring and decontamination regime applied to some aircrew who were involved in the tests.
Measures were taken in two ways to protect the civil population in Australia and Christmas Island from radiation hazards. First, they were kept out of the danger areas and, secondly, it was ensured that fall-out did not harm them outside those areas. Residual radiation at Maralinga in Australia, where certain trials took place until 1963, has been dealt with by a programme of site rehabilitation. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there was an agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia to deal with that. The agreement on personnel was a typical one between two countries, and most of the money was for cleaning up the site.
Separate and independent studies by Washington university in 1975 and by the New Zealand Department of Health in 1981 confirmed the findings of a 1964 atomic weapons research establishment study that, radiologically, the tests at Christmas Island had no impact on the islanders' environment, and had not contributed to any current or past health problems among the local population. I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend was unconvinced by the evidence on that, and especially by the evidence from the New Zealand Government.

Mr. Llew Smith: My comments about Australia were not intended as a criticism of the payment of compensation. They were about the failure to recognise that the compensation should be applicable not only to Australians who were affected but to British service personnel and medical auxiliaries.

Mr. Spellar: As I have said, most of the money was to be used to clean up the site. Inevitably, the Australian Government rightly asked us for indemnity to cover them for any compensation claims against them, because they are responsible for aborigines who might have been in the territory and for Australian personnel. We were responsible for British personnel. That is the standard procedure, and any proven connections between presence at the tests and the induction of radiologically determined cancers would bring people within the scope of the United Kingdom's war pensions scheme. We are working on facts rather than on assertions. I shall shortly deal with that.
The subsequent position of the nuclear test veterans, which was outlined by my hon. Friend, has been the subject of detailed studies by the National Radiological Protection Board, which produced its initial report in 1988 and a follow-up one in 1993. The studies involved the medical records of no fewer than 21,000 veterans—some 85 per cent. of the total. The health of those veterans was compared with that of a similar control group of 22,000 personnel.
The 1993 NRPB report clearly concluded:
participation in the test programme has not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases".
Not only is the NRPB an independent advisory body to the Government, but the nuclear test veterans study group included representatives of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, an independent charity of unimpeachable credentials.
It is significant that the NRPB report was peer reviewed prior to publication in the British Medical Journal. Those conducting the studies included Professor Sir Richard Doll, a most eminent and respected epidemiologist, who is a world authority in his field and who was responsible for the pioneering work that established the clear connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent stressed the report by Sue Rabbit-Roff. There have been other studies, some of them of questionable statistical or scientific significance. My hon. Friend has tabled parliamentary questions about the Rabbit-Roff report. We think that it is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. As he said, it involves only a small proportion of veterans, about 2,000, who are members of the veterans association and are, by definition, a self-selected sample.
As far as I am aware, the work of Dr. Rabbit-Roff has not been peer reviewed or published in a reputable scientific journal. I urged that to be done when the report was published, and I still urge it. The statistical significance of Dr. Rabbit-Roff's work when compared with the vastly more comprehensive NRPB studies must be seriously questioned.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister said that the sample of about 2,000 people was small and self-selected. I do not think that it was self-selected. Those people are members of the veterans association, and many of them have since died. If the Minister views that as a small sample, surely the Department should fund research on a bigger sample. If the Government were willing to do that, I am sure that medical researchers would take part. That issue was raised in one of my questions.

Mr. Spellar: I fail to understand my hon. Friend's point. There have been two full studies of the full sample of test veterans by the National Radiological Protection Board. Both studies have been peer-reviewed and published, and have not been scientifically invalidated. My hon. Friend should bear that in mind.
I shall now turn to the two nuclear test veteran cases that were heard by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. One case concerned two former service men—Mr. McGinley and Mr. Egan, who were present at the atmospheric test. The other case concerned the daughter of a test veteran, who was diagnosed as suffering from leukaemia when she was four years old. The cases were referred to the court by the European Commission of Human Rights, which had concluded, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that there had been a violation of articles 6.1 and 8 in the McGinley and Egan case.
The finding of a violation of both articles related to the same issue. It was a narrow, technical point about access to records, which, it was claimed, were needed for the

veterans to get a fair hearing in an appeal for war pensions. The commission inferred from the evidence that was placed before it by the applicants' representative that there were yield and radiation level records from the atmospheric tests that had not been released publicly. It considered those records to be relevant to the veterans' case, because, without them, they could not usefully challenge the NRPB report on the veterans' health or an Atomic Weapons Establishment report on radiation levels.
From that, the commission concluded that there had been a violation of article 6.1 because the lack of those records placed
a disproportionate limitation on their right of access to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.
Therefore, let us be clear: the issue before the court relates to process, not to the substance of the claim that the veterans' experience at the tests led to cancer.
The Department's position is clear. We have consistently advised veterans of their individual radiation doses, based on the yields of the test devices and the distance of the individual from the device at the time of detonation. I will have to write to my hon. Friend on some of his detailed points, particularly as I took interventions during the debate.
New Ministers came to the Ministry of Defence determined to resolve matters on the basis of fact, not prejudgment. Whether dealing with industrial relations in the civil service, equipment purchases or the welfare of our troops, our guiding principles have been to be open to argument and to seek the truth and the facts. That is why the Minister for the Armed Forces has instigated a full investigation into Gulf war syndrome, and why I have taken measures with regard to those military personnel civilians who were—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next Adjournment debate.

Anne Bullen

1 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am delighted to see so many Members on the Treasury Benches, which somewhat belies the spin—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must have silence in the Chamber, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

Mr. Letwin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The presence of so many Labour Members somewhat belies the spin that has been placed on the matter by Labour spin doctors that the issue is of no concern.
The background to the debate is the long tradition of the British public service, whereby the consistent practice has been that individuals should be appointed to their post—as the civil service management code makes clear—if they are most fitted to that office and that, if an official who is involved in an appointment is shown to have a close relationship of any sort with a potential appointee, that is declared and the official in question then resiles from the appointment.
We have on record in Hansard—there is no question of misinterpretation—a series of answers to questions that were posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Those answers make perfectly clear a certain pattern of events.
To remind the House, on 21 May, the Foreign Secretary told the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he intended to dismiss Ms Bullen and to appoint Ms Regan as his diary secretary. Nine days later on 30 May, he informed officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he wished to change that pattern of events and to have an internal appointment instead.
At some point in those nine days, an official—

Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Letwin: I am afraid that I shall not give way as I have only six minutes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Letwin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McNulty: rose—

Mr. Letwin: At some point in that period, an official told Ms Bullen that she was to be dismissed and to be replaced by Ms Regan.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does not the failure of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to give way show that he has a very weak case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. This is an Adjournment debate and

the hon. Member for West Dorset has a right to refuse to give way. It appears that he is not going to give way. The House must come to order.

Mr. Letwin: When Labour Members have heard the whole story, they can decide for themselves whether the case is indeed so weak.
On another day in that nine-day period, an official telephoned Ms Regan to discuss her appointment. We are also told on the record by the Foreign Secretary that, during those nine days, he never informed officials about his relationship with Ms Regan; indeed, they were not so informed until August. We are also told on the record that Ms Bullen was induced by officials to agree that
the terms of her departure"—
[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) must be silent and behave properly.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that defence.
Ms Bullen was forced to agree that
the terms of her departure and the circumstances giving rise to it should not be disclosed to third parties."—[Official Report, 29 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 387.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Letwin: I will not.
The pattern that that reveals is clear. We have a Foreign Secretary, the holder of one of the great offices of state, who, for a period of at least—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How did Ms Bullen get the job?

Mr.Letwin: This is not about that.
The Foreign Secretary, for at least nine days, intended to appoint a person closely related to himself, while deceiving officials about that through failing to declare that connection.
The position is worse than that. Some months later, when it came to light that these events had transpired, the Foreign Secretary found himself in the presence of a Foreign Minister and high officials from a foreign Government in a foreign land. He did not take the opportunity to defend himself, as was his right. He took the opportunity, like some Labour Members from a sedentary position, to abuse the diary secretary whom he had displaced. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may not like the subject of the debate, but it is a Back Bencher's right to speak during an Adjournment debate, and he must be given that opportunity.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for


West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) begin at the starting point of the whole issue: how Ms Bullen got the appointment in the first place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for West Dorset has been in good order. Other hon. Members have been in bad order. I shall soon tell the hon. Gentleman if he is out of order.

Mr. Letwin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This pattern reveals three qualities on the part of the Foreign Secretary: first, a significant failure of judgment during nine important days; secondly, a tenuous grip on public ethics, to the point where—

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have some guidance? Is not the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) misinforming the House by implying that this person was a civil service appointment, rather than a political appointment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Letwin: I shall answer. The appointment of Ms Regan—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is in order. I assure the House that, if he is out of order, I shall be the first to say so.

Mr. Letwin: The appointment of Ms Regan was a public service appointment, or would have been, had it occurred. In seeking to make it happen while deceiving officials, the Foreign Secretary acted in a way that would have led to the dismissal of a senior official, had he behaved in the same way.
Thirdly, in behaving as he did in Albania, the Foreign Secretary demeaned himself, his office and this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say that the Foreign Secretary was deceiving the House? [Interruption.] Order. I must hear the hon. Gentleman, and the House is not giving me that opportunity. How can I chair these proceedings if there is too much noise? Did the hon. Gentleman mention the word "deceiving"?

Mr. Letwin: I did not mention the term "deceit" in the context of this House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me chair the debate. There are too many chairmen. The hon. Member for West Dorset should not accuse another hon. Member of deception of any kind. Will he withdraw that remark?

Mr. Letwin: I apologise.
The Foreign Secretary failed to disclose to officials an item that it was essential to disclose. He demeaned himself and his office and, under those circumstances,

our case is straightforward. There is a great question mark over the tenability of the Foreign Secretary's position in his current office.

Mr. Michael Howard: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the permission of the Minister and the promoter of the Adjournment debate to speak.

Mr. Howard: That is so. I make it clear from the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I speak from the Back Benches in deference to your specific ruling on this point, that I do not intend to accept any interventions so that the Minister may have the maximum amount of time to respond to this important if brief debate, and that the world will draw its own conclusions from the ludicrous attempts by Labour Members to disrupt this debate, and will ask what they have to hide.
Let me make it clear at the outset—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy. The House must come to order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking from the Back Benches because of my ruling.

Mr. Howard: This is not a debate about the private life of the Foreign Secretary. The criticisms that we make are not about his private life. When the Foreign Secretary made his decision last August, apparently at the behest of the Prime Minister's press secretary, to leave his wife, I made no comment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he was not going to use it against him in any way, as it was a personal and private matter. When the Foreign Secretary's wife entered the lists last month with comments that gave us a remarkable insight into the Foreign Secretary's character, I again made no criticism.
What we are concerned about today is the way in which the Foreign Secretary discharges his public duties and his public responsibilities. That is properly a matter for this House. Indeed, it is the very essence of our system—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed to those on the Government Benches and I do so again. Hon. Members must keep in good order.

Mr. Howard: It is the very essence of our system of parliamentary democracy that the way in which Ministers carry out their public duties and responsibilities should be subject to scrutiny in Parliament. That is what Parliament is here to do, and if Parliament neglected its obligation to protect defenceless citizens and to hold Ministers to account, it would be a dereliction of its duty to those who send us to this place.
The allegation made against the Foreign Secretary is that he sacked a civil servant, sought to replace her with his mistress, did not tell officials in the Foreign Office that she was his mistress, and left the public to pick up the bill for compensating that sacked civil servant. If true, that conduct would amount to a scandalous abuse of ministerial power.


It would render the Foreign Secretary unfit for public office. Indeed, I doubt whether the seriousness of such conduct is a matter for controversy.
A week ago, the Prime Minister himself agreed that such conduct would be wrong. Last Friday, the Foreign Secretary agreed that such conduct would be wrong. He said that on 30 May he recognised that what he had spent many days—indeed, perhaps weeks—trying to do was wrong. We now know—

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to give way. He made that clear at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Howard: We now know—

Mr. Ivor Caplin: Coward—Howard the coward.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That term should not be used in the House. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw it—please withdraw it.

Mr. Caplin: I withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is withdrawn.

Mr. Howard: We now know, after days of written answers, dragged bit by bit out of the Foreign Secretary—

Dr. George Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

Dr. Turner: As a new Member, I would welcome your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members would like to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has some form of interest to declare, because many of us on Labour Benches are incensed to hear that cheque-book journalism is afoot and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's friends are involved in it. Have we not a right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Howard: We now know, after written answers dragged bit by bit, day by day, out of the Foreign Secretary that in every material respect the allegation against him has been proved. It is admitted that he sacked a civil servant.

Mr. Andy King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a proper point of order, as there have been none so far.

Mr. King: I believe that I have a point of order. I am a new Member too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I seek some clarification from you. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making unsubstantiated allegations and is not willing to answer one question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Howard: Nothing I say is unsubstantiated.
It is admitted that the Foreign Secretary caused a civil servant to be sacked. It is admitted that he sought to replace her with Mrs. Gaynor Regan. It is admitted that he did not tell officials in the Foreign Office that she was his mistress. It is admitted that the taxpayer picked up the bill for the sacked civil servant's compensation.
It is a measure of the lack of any moral sense among Labour Members that they behave as they do this afternoon. In every respect, the charge against the Foreign Secretary has been proved—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must appeal again to the House to behave itself. The House is behaving very badly.

Mr. Howard: I will not weary the House with all the answers that we have had from the Foreign Secretary, interesting though they are. But there is one which perhaps more than any other—

Mr. Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to continue to refer to the lady in question as a public servant and civil servant, even though she was not at the time of her appointment by a previous Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Howard: The lady in question was a civil servant; she was not a political appointee. Apart from special advisers, there are no political appointments in our civil service.
I will not weary the House with all the answers that we have had from the Foreign Secretary, but there is one which perhaps more than any other illustrates how remote the Foreign Secretary has become from the real world.

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I really do seek clarification. I am trying to make up my own mind about this debate. Is it not the case that had the person in question been a civil servant, she would have been moved sideways? It is the fact that she was a political appointee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Howard: There is one answer that illustrates more than any other how remote the Foreign Secretary has become from the real world and how distant he has become from any consideration of ethics or, indeed, common sense.
One of the key elements in this saga is whether the Foreign Secretary told officials in the Foreign Office the true nature of his relationship with Gaynor Regan at


the time he was seeking to have her appointed as a civil servant in his private office. This is his reply:
I do not discuss my private life with officials, nor do they seek to discuss it with me."—[Official Report, 29 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 388.]—
and this in relation to a woman whom he was seeking to appoint as a civil servant in his private office.
We have had a series of different answers on these points at different times from Labour party sources, from sources close to the Foreign Secretary and from the Foreign Secretary himself. What we have on the admissions of the Foreign Secretary himself is a scandalous abuse of ministerial power. We know from his admissions that he has done what the Prime Minister told this House last Wednesday was wrong. We know from his own admissions that he has done what he himself now admits was wrong. To answer this charge, he should have come to the House today. The fact that he has not done so is in itself disreputable, apart from being a gross discourtesy to the House. I hope that we shall have answers to that central allegation from the Minister today.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I reply to the debate as the Foreign Office Minister responsible for administration matters.
Two points have struck me during the debate. First, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will probably be a Member of this House for a long time, but I suspect that he will not have a worse moment than he has just had. Secondly, even though the hon. Gentleman did not live up to our expectations, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) certainly did. I should have thought it impossible that someone who had held senior office in a previous Administration could be as base as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was.
I shall answer some of the detailed points, but I shall deal first with one particular question. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was—indeed, the question was asked by other hon. Members from a sedentary position. Today, my right hon. Friend has been making a major speech about the overseas British dependent territories—an issue sorely neglected over the past 18 years by the previous Conservative Government. He will also meet the Romanian and German Foreign Ministers to discuss European Union matters and European Union enlargement. Tonight, he will travel to the Gulf to meet the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The contrast could not be clearer between the Foreign Secretary on the world stage, successfully pursuing British interests, and a shadow Foreign Secretary consumed by trivia and irrelevance. One of the most interesting and telling points of theta debate is that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe now speaks from the Back Benches, which is where he belongs.
I shall answer the two points that have been raised.

Mr. John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way in a few minutes.
The first point, which I know has given rise to some concern, relates to the appointment of Anne Bullen. In 1993, Ms Bullen was appointed diary secretary to the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd. She moved from a job as personal assistant to the Earl of Limerick, a former junior Conservative Minister and a lifelong friend and contemporary at Eton college of Lord Hurd.
The appointment was unique for the Foreign Office in that it was made under schedule 2, paragraph (2)(i) of the Diplomatic Service Order in Council 1991. That chosen procedure meant that Ms Bullen's appointment had three essential characteristics: first, the usual competitive civil servant recruitment procedures were bypassed; secondly, the appointment could be for a maximum of only five years; thirdly—some of my hon. Friends made this point in their interventions—Ms Bullen was not a career civil servant.
As one might expect, the appointment caused controversy among staff at the Foreign Office, and I have no doubt that there were suggestions of personal and political influence. Feelings ran so high that the chairman of the diplomatic service trade union, Ric Girdlestone, was asked by his members to write to the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd. He said:
We are at a loss to understand why a suitably qualified DS9"—
that is the staff rating—
should not have been given the job. Does this mean that the Administration is not producing the right calibre of DS9s to do the work asked of them?
The then Foreign Secretary replied:
The Diary Secretary position in my Private Office has always been a difficult one to fill. The job requires a mix of skills, including experience as a personal assistant and considerable maturity … As you know, the Diary Secretary was initially replaced in the summer. I regret to say that, even though I selected the person I thought best qualified, the appointment did not work out.
Let me sum up: Anne Bullen's appointment was made through a special procedure for a fixed term; it did not grant her career civil service status; and it was closely and personally associated with the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd.

Mr. James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way in a few minutes, but I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe would like me to answer some of his questions first—I am very happy to do so.
As the House will know, Ms Bullen ceased to work as diary secretary on 27 June last year, for reasons that were set out in a parliamentary answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 29 January. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been extremely active in his pursuit of these issues—he has tabled many questions. Nevertheless, like the hon. Member for West Dorset, he raised no new issues today, so it might be worth my telling the House the key facts about the appointment of the new diary secretary, Lynne Rossiter, and the consequences of that decision.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few minutes.
We should remember first that, in contrast with the previous appointment, the new diary secretary was appointed through usual civil service procedures. Secondly, the post is once again occupied by a career civil servant. Thirdly, because no special procedures were used and no additional contractual expenditure was involved, there will in subsequent financial years be a saving to the taxpayer and the Exchequer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, showing all his base characteristics, asked about the consideration of Gaynor Regan for the post of diary secretary. There was absolutely nothing new in the points that he raised. Along with the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), he has detailed answers to his questions; they were issued on 29 January. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got the timing of his debate and questions wrong. Each of his questions has already been answered. I suggest that he finds a good research assistant to look at the material.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: My hon. Friend the Minister has heard the shadow Foreign Secretary in this debate and no doubt on the "Today" programme this morning. Does not he find it surprising that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have nothing to say about the severe crisis that we face in the Gulf and the possibility of military action against Iraq?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Before replying to this debate, I took the opportunity to look at all the written questions tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at a time of international crisis. Since 1 January, the right hon. and

learned Gentleman has tabled no written questions on the EU presidency—an issue dear to his heart—the middle east peace process, the crisis with Iraq, the dependent territories, or China. I shall not bore the House further; I shall say only that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled no question on foreign policy during the past three weeks.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Fatchett: One final point on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's performance is that he seems to regard the position of shadow Foreign Secretary as a sabbatical between his period in the Home Office and his rumoured high-paid job in the City.
I have been happy to answer today's debate because in it we have seen the clear difference between this Government and the Opposition. We are a Government who have been elected to do things, and we are getting on with doing things—making our schools better, improving our hospitals, tackling crime, strengthening the economy. The Opposition have no policy on any of those issues. We are a Government, a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary facing up to vital issues such as Iraq, Bosnia and the middle east. We have an Opposition who are playing games, obsessed with trivia, and chasing the gossip-column agenda. Their only message is: "The Tories were sleazy, so let us see that Labour is sleazy as well." But the public can tell the difference; they can tell the difference between the arms to Iraq—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who has secured the next debate, remain seated for a moment? I appeal to hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.

Children in Care

Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a shame that, rather than remaining in the Chamber for a significant and important debate, so many hon. Members feel the urgent need for lunch. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this subject. Many issues raised are important—unlike the subject of the previous debate—but this issue goes beyond that. How we look after children in care defines what sort of people we are. I have applied for this debate many times. It raises issues with which I have been concerned for many years. It carries the hopes of people whom I am privileged to call friends: young people in care—and those who have left care—excellent residential social workers, fine foster carers.
I shall not spend too much of the brief time available detailing the problems of local authority care. They are well set out in Sir William Utting's recent report, "People Like Us"; in recent submissions to the Select Committee on Health; and in notable publications from bodies such as the Who Cares? Trust, the National Foster Care Association.
We are all aware of investigations into scandalous sexual abuse. Many of us are learning about other issues: of the significant shortages of foster carers; of the 75 per cent. of children in care who leave formal education with no qualifications; of the 23 per cent. of the adult prison population who were brought up in care; of the 30 per cent. of homeless 16 to 17-year-olds who have care backgrounds; of the sheer lack of placements; and of children who experience placement breakdowns and heart-wrenching moves time and again. No honest person who asks the simple yet searching question, "Would this be good enough for my child?" could possibly answer in the affirmative. Is there any decent person who is not affronted by such facts?
Many good people work in local authority care. Brave and resilient young people have benefited from it. Some progress has been made. The Warner recommendations of recent years have improved staff selection and slightly raised qualification levels. There is hope from a ministerial task force that will give the Utting report its utmost serious consideration. "People Like Us" calls for urgent action to raise standards, a national strategy for residential care and an inspection of the recruitment and support of foster carers, followed by a Government code of practice.
We have a Minister—it is good to see him in his place—who palpably listens to young people and people working in residential and foster care. It is the 50th anniversary of the Children Act 1948, which established children's officers. The deep irony is that the Act was in the wake of an inquiry following the death of a child in foster care. This year, the United Kingdom must prepare a report on its implementation of the United Nations convention on children's rights.
I suggest that we need to do three big things. They will not solve every problem, but they would set us on the right track and could form the basis of a properly valued and intensely valuable care system. First, we should put children's rights at the forefront of our agenda. Secondly, we should develop the training and career structure of residential workers. Thirdly, we should instigate a significant element of professional fostering in every local authority.
To justify the latter two suggestions, the House should consider the tasks that we ask of largely unqualified residential workers and inadequately supported foster carers. They do not simply play a parental role, which is familiar to many of us, or merely undertake the hugely complex and stressful task of keeping children warm, safe, fed and open to play and education. Moreover, they do not just negotiate boundaries and deal with growing pains and all the horrors of adolescence. They do much more than that.
Residential workers and foster carers comfort and help children to come to terms with abuse and overwhelming rejection; handle the manifold issues and tremendous inconsistencies surrounding parental contacts; undertake the acutely sensitive work of settling someone in and offering trust; make all the complex preparation for possible moves to permanent family placements or to independence; assist children to make relationships with all the strangers with whom they did not choose to live; try to maintain consistency and make the needs of children paramount; understand anger and deal with sometimes appalling behaviour without rejecting the person behind it; undergo advocacy on behalf of the child with the plethora of institutions, professionals and agencies who come in and out of the child's life; listen and communicate, often at those times of acute distress which just happen to be late at night when they are just off to bed, no one else is around and they are left to deal with the problem; understand law and social policy and—crucially—how to make bureaucratic systems work; manage carefully the competing demands of needy children who vie for one's attention immediately; keep going when their best efforts are rejected, are able to have a laugh, and at the end of the day, still actually like children.
I have observed and managed residential and foster care. It seems that such activities are grounded in the everyday task of parenting—but they go way beyond that. The tasks are professional, yet at the heart of this most distressing problem, we expect that the complex, deeply sensitive, emotionally and physically exhausting task of looking after the most needy children can be done on the cheap by low-paid and unqualified workers; by people with other jobs and families who work in their spare time; by people whose esteem is lowered by the lack of credibility afforded them; by people whose career opportunities largely rest on getting out in order to get on.
We shall never really offer a better future for children in care until that is changed, and we recognise the ludicrously simple reality that all residential workers need to be professionally qualified, with a proper career structure, and that we need at least a good proportion of foster carers to be people who are paid a living wage and properly trained and supported for doing what is more than a full-time job.
We shall never get things right until then; we shall never give the more than 40,000 children in care their basic right to the best childhood that they can have. If we really want to stress children's rights, perhaps we should heed the words of Sir William Utting:
We should make direct use of the experience of young people in developing policy, planning and training for services for children who live away from home … looking after them would be easier and much more effective if we really heard and understood what they have to tell us.
Listening to a new national organisation for young people in care would be a good task for the Government. Listening to children in care could be the basis of a new


system of local authority care. Putting residential care and foster care on a proper footing could help us all to be proud of who we are.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The whole House will welcome the opportunity to address this important issue. Our children and young people are our future and we as a society must be a better parent than we have been to a crucial group of children—children who are looked after, those for whom we have a responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) brings to the debate, and to the topic in general, a body of knowledge and experience in the care of children in institutional settings that is especially valuable. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought to my Department just such a group of young people, thus enabling them to share with my officials and me their valuable insights into the experience of care.
There is much that we need to do. When describing the Government's approach to Sir William Utting's report, the Secretary of State made it clear that we attach special importance to the subject. A ministerial task force under the leadership of my right hon. Friend has been established, and it will operate across government to ensure that the various Departments with an interest in the area are well represented.
It is not without significance that we see a special role for education. It is a vital task when it comes to moving young people from care into the world of adulthood and work in a seamless way that is supportive of them. Sadly, that is far from characteristic of the current situation, in which young people leaving care all too often find themselves adrift in a hostile uncaring world. Unlike so many other children, they do not have parents and a wider family there for them.
We as a society have a duty to ensure that we do not allow that group of vulnerable young people leaving care—after perhaps spending their whole lives there—with all the problems that my hon. Friend has described. We cannot have them launched out into the world in a leaky vessel, likely to add to the statistics of failure and criminality that are too often the sad consequences of neglect at that vital time. The Government are determined to put an end to that situation.
What are we doing about the problem? First, we see a role for good practice and training. Her Majesty's chief inspector of social services has carried out an important assessment of local authorities' compliance with essential management and staffing safeguards, to ensure that what is already supposed to be in place is there. That body of work continues, and is giving us valuable indicators of what we have to do. We shall continue to act on the messages brought to us.
We also see a role for a change in the way in which we focus social care, and in the context in which such care is delivered. That is why, in the late spring or early summer, we shall publish a White Paper on social services that will set out our detailed proposals for the improvements in the regulation of social services that we believe are long overdue.
That will mean a transparent, tough, accountable but independent regulatory and inspection system, which will drive up standards in residential settings for young people. It will also mean closer co-operation between health and social care services, so that we can deal with some of the health problems, not least those involving mental health, that affect young people in care.
The Government are committed to the establishment of a general social care council, and the statutory regulation and discipline, where appropriate, of professional workers in the field. We believe that such a body, which will also have a responsibility for training, will make a real difference where, as my hon. Friend knows too well, a difference needs to be made.
I shall now address some of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. He mentioned the vital role of training and qualifications in the delivery of services to that group of under-privileged and vulnerable young people. We recognise that there has been some progress in the training of heads and deputy heads of homes. Less progress, however, has been made in the support of other staff in gaining relevant national vocational qualifications.
That, I know, is an area of concern for the Select Committee, to which I had the pleasure of giving evidence last week. What I said to the Committee, and what I now repeat to the House, is that, in view of the importance that we attach to ensuring that residential child care staff are qualified to do the difficult and challenging task expected of them, we have ring-fenced about £2 million for 1998–99 to fuel the demand for level 3 NVQs for residential child care staff.
That will have a significant impact in ensuring that those young people receive care from people who can draw on the qualifications that equip them better to do the job, and on a body of knowledge and learning that gives them as residential workers a greater sense of status and self-esteem. One of the problems that my hon. Friend recognises is that, for too long, residential care work has been regarded in some circles as an inferior form of social work. That is not acceptable. For the Government, it is a vital branch of social work, and we want it to be given the recognition and status that are its due.
My hon. Friend mentioned fostering. In stark contrast to my predecessor at the Department of Health under the departed Conservative regime, we recognise that there is a problem with the recruitment and retention of foster carers. They are required to carry out some difficult and complex tasks in relation to the upbringing of some difficult and vulnerable children, some of whom have complex needs. Other children whose problems are not so severe or complex do not necessarily require the same degree of attention, but they do require the love, care and support that every child needs.
The recruitment problems go across the board. The Department is determined to encourage support for local initiatives to recruit foster carers which are rooted in an assessment of local needs. We want the measures necessary to encourage a particular group of people to come forward to deliver this valuable service. Those will vary from area to area. For instance, where there is a particular problem with recruiting foster carers from the ethnic minority communities, the evidence shows that it is a good idea to put advertisements in newspapers and publications that are read within those communities. The evidence also shows that, whatever the ethnic background


of a community, locally based campaigns, using local media, institutions and person-to-person contact, are the best way to recruit foster carers.
We want to encourage local authorities to learn from one another, and to learn good practice. We also want to make sure that, once foster carers are recruited, they are retained. That means ensuring that they have appropriate training and flexible levels of remuneration to recognise the differing degrees of complexity and the differing demands required of foster carers according to the needs of children and young people. We are not saying that all carers should be paid the same; we recognise that some will need to be paid more than others. Some do not see their role as essentially professional at all but as a voluntary contribution to the welfare of the community, and they want it to be recognised as such. The system needs to be sufficiently flexible to recognise that, and work must be done in relation to the residential staff of children's homes and other institutions and foster carers.
My hon. Friend called for a greater recognition of the importance of children's rights. Following the start that the Government have made in this area, I hope that he feels that we have shown that we regard children's rights as important. We set that approach within the broader framework of the rights and responsibilities that parents, children and society have as well. Rights need to be balanced with responsibilities. It is central to the approach of the Government to ensure that that is applied to children just as much as to parents.
My hon. Friend was present at a conference at the beginning of this week at which we began, as a United Kingdom, to prepare our response to the United Nations in terms of our fulfilment of our treaty obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child. It will be our second report, and we are determined that it will be characterised by a child-centred approach that recognises that children and young people must be given a voice.
We started the process on Monday. My hon. Friend was present, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has done so much inside and outside the House for children and children's rights. Also present, I am glad to say, were many distinguished representatives of the voluntary sector and the president of the family division of the High Court. We are drawing on all those strands, with children and young people at the heart. I hope that we will see the fruition of that work in a report that will, of itself, provide an agenda for change.
We must make sure that the issue is taken forward across Government. That is why the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in terms of the establishment and operation of the social exclusion unit is so important. In launching the unit at Stockwell Manor school, my right hon. Friend put the rights and interests of children and young people in care—particularly at the vulnerable time when they leave care—at the heart of

Government policy. Within the Department, we shall ensure that the work of the unit is co-ordinated with policy to focus on the needs and interests of children and young people.
In terms of the new deal and welfare to work, we have seen the process begin. We must make sure that care leavers claiming jobseeker's allowance are able to enter the new deal programme early if they choose so to do. That is one example of the way in which we have adapted policy to make sure that we deliver to that most vulnerable group of young people. The new start strategy—part of our investment in young people—is a national strategy based on partnership projects, which co-ordinates local action to tackle poor motivation and non-participation in learning, with a focus on 14 to 17-year-olds who have dropped out of learning or are at risk of doing so. That strategy also ought to focus on care leavers, and that is why a number of new start projects focus specifically on that particular group.
The voluntary sector is working with us in partnership. My hon. Friend knows of First Key and the vital work—supported by the Department—that it does in seeing how the Government ought to meet the challenge of giving children and young people in care a voice and a role to play in the development, formulation, monitoring and implementation of policy. We are studying the results of that research carefully. The ministerial task force will consider the matter as it responds to Sir William Utting's report and, in due course, we shall make announcements.
I also want to mention the Who Cares? Trust and the valuable work that it does in this area. The Prince's Trust recently launched a three-year programme, specifically addressing the provision of mentors for care leavers. The aim is to ensure that, by the year 2000, all young people leaving care will have access to someone to help, support and advise them. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Newcastle-under-Lyme have taken up this issue, and it was a matter of concern for the Health Select Committee.
The notion of mentoring is that we bring someone on board in the life of that child. We can call that person a mentor, a befriender, a counsellor, a supporter or a champion; the important thing is that they are there for the child in care. Being there: that is what it is all about. The House has to be there for the child and young person and it is as a result of debates such as this, and the interest and concern that they generate, that we shall be there for children and young people in care. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling the debate to take place. I must tell him, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends interested in this matter, that, for children and young people in care, the best is yet to come. We shall be there for them.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Millennium Compliance

Mr. Ian Bruce: What progress is being made in tackling the millennium computer problem within Government Departments. [25355]

Mr. Sutcliffe: If he will make a statement on the progress being made by Government Departments to address the millennium computer compliance problem. [25359]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Following my statement to the House on 27 November 1997, I made note of the comments raised by hon. Members, and wrote to the Departments and agencies responsible for further information on skills shortages, embedded systems and contingency plans, which were hon. Members' key worries. Those responses have now been received, and they have been placed in the Library of the House and published on the internet. So far, I have published more than 1,600 pages on the internet and that is in line with the open process of public scrutiny which I began in November. In addition, last week my ministerial group on the millennium date change problem relating to central Government held its first, very positive, meeting and further action will arise from that.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that full reply. He probably knows that early-day motion 661 congratulates the Government on the open way in which they are tackling the millennium problem, but I am somewhat sad to have to say that I am thinking of removing my name from that early-day motion because of the lack of clarity. We keep being told that more and more committees are being set up—first, it is the Prime Minister, then it is the President of the Board of Trade and then it is the right hon. Gentleman himself—but we do not really know what is going on. Will he start to put some oomph behind this issue and, instead of dismantling what was there previously, get on with the job, get it done and try to make people feel that both the Government and business will be ready on time?

Dr. Clark: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his name, because he does pay tribute to the Government's openness in their approach to the problem. No one should be complacent, but equally, we must not be alarmist. We must work towards meeting the millennium deadline and that is the Government's objective. We will work in an open way across central Government, which is my responsibility, across Government Departments, which have responsibility for various other organisations, and across private industry. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is no use central Government getting it right if private industry has not got it right.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that the current Government are being far more decisive on this issue than were the previous Government? It is right and proper that the information is publicised in the way it has been. Does not the fact that the documents are published every three months show the Government's commitment to open government?

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, the year 2000 problem needs constant monitoring. I am determined to make sure that the Government keep a good grip on the issues and that we report fully to the House of Commons. By publishing the detailed departmental estimates, we are being as open as possible so that everyone can see the state of play. As I promised, I have written to my ministerial colleagues asking for their three-monthly update and, as soon as I have received that information and my officials have looked at it, we shall report it to the House.

Mr. David Atkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that computer systems in the public sector—crucially, in some hospitals—failed to recognise the date of 29 February 1996, a leap year, which caused problems? Has he taken account of that experience in his strategy towards the millennium compliance of computer systems in the public sector to ensure that in the year 2000, which is also a leap year, we do not experience similar problems?

Dr. Clark: We are aware of the manifold problems arising from the millennium 2000. The date of 29 February 1996 was not the only one to cause problems; the date of 9 September 1999 will be another. I am writing to my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for public services asking them if they will write to their relevant local authorities, national health service organisations and other public bodies to try to ensure that they carry out an inventory and audit of their progress similar to the one that we are conducting at central Government level.

Mr. Miller: Whether or not the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) withdraws his name from early-day motion 661, when my right hon. Friend receives the report from his Cabinet colleagues, will he ask them to look carefully at the spirit of the motion, which was tabled with all-party support, as they prepare the next batch of reports? Departments could make some serious progress if they followed the spirit of that motion.

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the early-day motion and I thank the hon. Members who signed it. It pays tribute to the open way in which the Government have approached the subject. I have drawn it to the attention of my colleagues; it is important because it raises awareness of the millennium 2000 problem, which applies not only to central Government, but to other public bodies and private industry.

Mrs. Gillan: Notwithstanding the new-found letter-writing skills of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Government can hardly be proud of their slothful and inadequate progress on the millennium problem, as the right hon. Gentleman has made only one statement in nine months and the ministerial committee


only bothered to hold its first meeting the week before last. More alarming is the fact that it is now evident that businesses and industry are revising their costings upwards daily and that the Government still have no idea of the final costs of finding a solution to the millennium problem. With fewer than 90 working weeks until the millennium, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he can solve the problem in time? How much will it cost? On what basis has he made his costings? Where is the money coming from?

Dr. Clark: That question comes a bit rich from a representative of the Conservative party, which left this Government with no plans whatsoever to deal with the millennium 2000 problem. When I took over my portfolio in May, one of the first things I did was to ask about the problem; I found that nothing had been prepared.
To respond to the question, we have published 1,600 pages of the detailed report on how central Government Departments are tackling the problem. I challenged the information technology industry in this country to trawl through those documents, to make an analysis and to try to identify any shortcomings in central Government plans. Not a single response has been received from private industry or from the hon. Lady on where we are going wrong. We are being open with the House; the figures are available and will be updated. They may vary as time goes on, but the key issue is not to try to score points, but to ensure that we meet the millennium deadline in the year 2000.

Public Service Delivery

Mr. McNulty: What consultations he has carried out with the general public on issues relating to the delivery of public services. [25356]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We have carried out a number of consultations on public services with a wide variety of interested bodies, as well as with individual members of the public. The consultations have covered the new charter programme, due to be launched as part of the better government initiative later this year; improving the effectiveness and accountability of quangos; proposals on freedom of information; and most recently, a consultative paper on improving means of disseminating official information to the public. In addition, as we announced last week, we are establishing a people's panel of some 5,000 members of the public who will be consulted regularly on public service issues.

Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the better government initiative, which is bound to make public services much more effective. Some sections of the community, particularly the elderly, rely on public services far more than others. What steps are the Government taking to improve access to public services for the elderly, in contrast to the disdain and contempt for the elderly shown by the previous lot?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are attempting to make public services more accessible for everybody. Last year, I hosted a forum for the elderly to ascertain their needs and whether IT was applicable to satisfying those needs. More immediately, to ensure that we get it right,

we have set up a project with the Warwick university local authority consortium, Age Concern, the Anchor housing trust and the Carnegie UK trust under the directorship of Martin Shreeve, late of the social services department in Wolverhampton. We intend, around June, in partnership with the Citizenship Foundation and Age Concern, with sponsorship from Guardian Royal Exchange and Saga Holidays, to publish a passport for the over-50s.

Freedom of Information

Mrs. Mahon: What representations he has received from other Governments on his proposals for a freedom of information Act. [25358]

Dr. David Clark: I have received letters from the Australian Solicitor-General, as well as from the Information Commissioners for Canada and British Columbia, and the Chief Ombudsman of New Zealand. These variously describe our proposals as "exhilarating", "cutting edge" and including the "best of best practice".

Mrs. Mahon: I am glad that my right hon. Friend's proposals for a radical freedom of information Act have been so well received abroad. More information will change the culture of government in this country. Can he assure the House that, as he builds on the White Paper, the Act itself, as it goes through the House, will be progressive and open?

Dr. Clark: The consultation period is still progressing and closes at the end of this month. I am very pleased with the response so far. It is important to make it clear that "Your Right to Know" is a statement of the Government's intention, agreed by the Cabinet Committee and endorsed by the full Cabinet. Although there are several areas that we indicated had green edges, I do not envisage any major changes to the spirit or the substance of the White Paper. I am confident that the Bill will be a radical, progressive and landmark piece of legislation, and that it will, as my hon. Friend says, change the political culture of Britain.

Dr. Julian Lewis: At a time when other countries are opening up their cold war files to public inspection and to inspection by historians, what does the right hon. Gentleman think of the fact that in this country, the Security Service is apparently about to engage in the mass destruction of cold war files, in part at the behest of the Minister without Portfolio, who is worried about his own?

Dr. Clark: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have progressively been releasing documents from our security services over recent years. We have already done so in relation to world war one, and later this year, we will do so in relation to world war two. We have already released some information about the current situation. It is the Government's intention to release as many documents as possible, although we will not do anything that threatens the security of this country.

Better Government Programme

Mr. Ben Chapman: Which Government Departments are involved in his better government programme. [25360]

Mr. Kilfoyle: All parts of Government are actively involved in the preparations for the better government White Paper. This includes local as well as central Government.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I warmly welcome the better government initiative, which will allow us to implement that part of our manifesto to rebuild people's hopes for politics. In that context, the use of information technology will be important. It will allow us to deliver services more efficiently and more quickly. What are my hon. Friend's plans for the use of new technology in the better government initiative?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We have many plans to use information technology—although it is not the only answer. It is only one weapon in an armoury that is designed to deliver better services. The armoury includes an electronic dimension to the vanguard project, which combines the Contributions Agency, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. We also have the direct access government project, which has already put more than 600 forms and pieces of Government information on to the internet. The central information technology unit ranges across Government, finding appropriate ways in which to use information technology. My right hon. Friend has already instigated work on the use of smartcards and electronic signatures to that end.

Mr. Ruffley: In the context of improving his Department's performance, will the Minister tell us whether those inquiring into the disgraceful leaking of the freedom of information legislation have personally interviewed the Minister without Portfolio and/or his associates? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Mr. Kilfoyle: No.

Mr. McAllion: As part of the better government programme, do the Government intend to do something about the concentration of civil service departments and quangos in relatively few population centres? For example, Edinburgh and Glasgow have twice as many civil service and quango jobs per head of population as Dundee—and God knows how the figures for London compare with those for Dundee. What are the Government's plans for a people's civil service which is dispersed across the entire country, and therefore in touch with what those of us who live outside the greater metropolitan areas think?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, individual civil servants are chosen on the basis of merit. Some areas of the civil service will obviously be responsible to the future Scottish Parliament. The better government project aims to ensure that we deliver better services to the people by whatever means. That is the yardstick against which we shall measure where it is appropriate to locate individual civil servants or Departments.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Paterson: What representations he has received on the freedom of information White Paper. [25361]

Dr. David Clark: We have received more than 70 responses so far, and the overwhelming majority of them have welcomed the Government's proposals.

Mr. Paterson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that, following legislation, there will be more or less freedom of information than exists in the United States of America?

Dr. Clark: It is clearly a very different system, and I am determined that we will not follow the American system of litigation in the form of appeal. The system that we have developed is designed for the Westminster model and for our political culture. I have been encouraged by the responses that I have received from overseas, almost all of which refer to this piece of legislation as belonging to the next generation of freedom of information Acts.

Ms Abbott: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be aware that his freedom of information White Paper and the radical proposals that it contains have been widely acclaimed. It may be one of the most important things that the Government will do. Has my right hon. Friend received any representations about the Millennium Experience Company? In the spirit of the freedom of information White Paper, should it now post interim accounts so that there may be greater transparency regarding how it is spending £750 million of public money?

Dr. Clark: It would not be appropriate for me to trespass on the millennium experience. However, the idea of continually releasing information is a good sign and a positive step towards freedom of information. Although I do not wish to anticipate a written question at 3.30 this afternoon, I can confirm that I hope to publish a background paper on the details that were given to the committee that drew up the White Paper, as I promised to do on an earlier occasion.

Correspondence

Mr. Burns: What guidance he provides to civil servants concerning the time taken to answer correspondence from hon. Members; and what monitoring he carries out. [25362]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Each Minister in charge of a Department is responsible for ensuring that the handling of correspondence in that Department is effective, and that robust and challenging target times are set for replies to letters from hon. Members. Individual Ministers are also responsible for monitoring their Department's performance against those target times. My Department collates and publishes information for all Departments annually.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In a genuine and non-party political way, I stress that there is concern about deteriorating standards and the length of time that hon. Members must wait before


receiving ministerial replies to constituents' queries. Some 63 per cent. of my correspondence does not receive a reply until after four weeks and 23 per cent. does not receive a reply until after nine weeks. Will the Minister speak to his Government colleagues about trying to tighten up the system and restore the standards that applied before 1 May?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Office of Public Service is responsible for collating and reviewing such information; that process is on-going. Individual Departments are responsible to individual Ministers. Last year, in the Office of Public Service, 63 per cent. of correspondence met the target date. So far this year, under the new Government, that figure has gone up to 97 per cent.

Better Regulation Unit

Mr. Pike: What projects have been identified as priorities for action by the better regulation unit. [25363]

Dr. David Clark: A key part of my work is to create a modern and fair Government servicing our citizens. One of the unit's priorities is the smooth operation of the deregulation order-making process. I thank my hon. Friend for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Deregulation. Other priorities that we have identified include the direct access Government system for providing regulatory forms and guidance and developing a concordat, local business partnerships and one-stop services. In addition, the unit works closely with the better regulation task force, chaired by Chris Haskins, and with other Departments in the review of existing regimes and the development of new proposals.

Mr. Pike: I welcome my right hon. Friend's work to ensure that we obtain the right balance between scrapping unnecessary red tape and providing protection for the British citizen. Bearing in mind the importance of that, how will the better regulation task force ensure best practice?

Dr. Clark: As my hon. Friend knows, we replaced the deregulation task force with the better regulation task force because we recognised that a balance had to be struck on the lines that he has suggested. More than half the members of the better regulation task force are drawn from small businesses. They have been broken up into various working parties led by experts and they have recently produced a good set of principles for good regulations which have been broadly welcomed in Britain and in the European Union, to the extent that I intend to have them translated into French and German. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The conversations are much too noisy. I cannot hear.

Mr. Fabricant: Further to the earlier question of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), will the unit ensure that the principles of the freedom of information Act are upheld? Will he assure the House now that the files held on the Minister without Portfolio will not be destroyed and will be made available when the Act is passed?

Dr. Clark: I am not responsible for the operation of the security services.

Former Civil Servants

Mr. Flight: What representations he has received on the economic circumstances of former members of the Civil Service who took a gratuity on leaving the service in the 1960s and 1970s. [25365]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Only those made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Flight: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his detailed letter setting out the contractual history. Has the Minister any estimate of the number of female former civil servants whose pensions have been either lost or reduced as a result of their taking gratuities? The situation may be contractually correct, but did those individuals receive the same standard of advice that is now expected of those advising people on their pension arrangements?

Mr. Kilfoyle: No estimate has been made, and the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties in trying to do so. As to some rearrangement after this period of time, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an actuarial rather than a political or administrative point. Those who took the marriage gratuity before 1972 were, in the context of their time, advantaged. Oddly enough, the people who were disadvantaged were those who chose to leave the civil service before the age of 50, both male and female.

Public Appointments Unit

Mrs. Lait: How many vacancies on public bodies have been filled from the list held by the public appointments unit since 1 May. [25366]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Since May, the public appointments unit has made nominations for around 600 appointments. Over the same period, it has learnt of 59 appointments that have been made following nomination by the unit. A number of recent appointments are still under consideration.

Mrs. Lait: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he not horrified at how few appointments are made from the public appointments unit, given the thousands of public appointments that there are? Is he aware that, in the "Civil Service Year Book", no civil servant with responsibility for the list is listed? Does he not think it time that the public appointments unit is boosted or, given the cynicism with which it is regarded by those outside who wish to offer themselves for public service, is killed off?

Mr. Kilfoyle: What horrified me after 1 May was the extent to which the Conservatives, while in government, boosted the Tory nomenklatura on the quangocracy. We have attempted to use all means possible, including the public appointments unit, to ensure that there is the widest possible dissemination of information about vacancies on quangos, and to ensure that more women and ethnic minorities get the representation that was denied them in the previous 18 years in the unelected quango state.

UK Presidency

Ann Clwyd: What plans he has to press for the simplification of EU rules and administrative procedures during the UK presidency. [25367]

Dr. Clark: My presidency initiative is to press for the simplification of European Union rules and administrative procedures. To make these as effective as possible, I have secured the support of my Austrian and German counterparts to continue the initiative during their presidencies, which follow ours. That means that there will be a 18-month campaign to make European regulations more relevant and focused. I hope that that will mean that silly talk of square eggs and straight bananas will become a thing of the past.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I spent much of my time trying to translate the gobbledegook of European language into language that people could understand. Will he look at that matter and see whether we can give information to people in clear, simple language so that they know their rights and opportunities as European citizens?

Dr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, last week I spent a day with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels trying to explore ways in which to tackle this particularly difficult issue, because it is important that rules and regulations emanating from Governments should be clear and understandable to our citizens. We also took the initiative of launching citizen—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should stop this hullabaloo when the leaders of the parties come in. It is a total waste of time. I had hoped that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons might have got it through to Members before now that we do not want these last hurrahs when the leaders of the parties come into the Chamber.

Dr. Clark: I also took the opportunity the week before last to launch the citizen first campaign in Britain, which draws to the attention of the British people their rights under European legislation.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that the difficulties of interpretation of European regulations can be compounded by the work of our parliamentary draftsmen, who should be encouraged to follow the best practice of the Government in bringing in clear language that does not restrict discretions in the way in which some legislation, particularly agricultural subordinate legislation, of which he will be aware, has in the past?

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman raises a real point. We need to be careful that we do not have "gold plating" of European legislation when we incorporate it into our domestic legislation.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to his oral answer of 30 July 1997, Official Report, columns 322–23, what representations he has received from broadcasting interests on freedom of information. [25368]

Dr. David Clark: I have received a letter from the chief executive of BBC News, which said that the BBC would submit a corporate response to the freedom of information White Paper in due course.

Mr. Dalyell: How about the investigation rights of journalists?

Dr. Clark: It would be very strange if the Freedom of Information Act brought in restrictions on the role of journalists—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have such noise from Government Members either. [Interruption.] We want no geese in the Chamber. I hope that I have made myself clear and that we shall not have this on any other Wednesday.

Dr. Clark: It will be right and proper for any publicly funded organisation such as the BBC to be open to freedom of information, but nothing must be done to restrict investigative journalists or to put pressure on journalists to disclose sources. We made that clear and that is my commitment.

Smartcards

Mr. Sheerman: What plans he has to utilise smartcards for the delivery of public services. [25369]

Dr. David Clark: The new technology of smartcards will form a major part of our better government programme, allowing us to modernise public services and deliver flexible, user-friendly packages to our citizens. My Department is focusing on using smartcards to put electronic signatures on electronic forms, which will make life much easier for business people and ordinary citizens. The Government are exploring ways of using smartcards to make life easier for citizens in their dealings with government.

Mr. Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend examined the experience of France and Germany, which use smartcards extensively in their health services? The process saves an enormous amount of money and a lot of the filing that takes up much of the accommodation of hospitals and general practitioner surgeries. Will he consider whether that experience is applicable to Britain, which has the leaders in smartcards in our leading-edge supermarkets?

Dr. Clark: We are examining all sorts of ways of using smartcards. We are aware of the experiments and work undertaken in Germany and France. There is a project involving the Benefits Agency and the Post Office to consider how to use smartcards and other cards for the delivery of benefits. That will involve considerable new


investment under a private finance initiative for the Post Office. We are exploring along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Sanders: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I go to the United States of America.

Mr. Sanders: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a national health service dentist in my constituency [HON. MEMBERS: "Only one?] Yes, only one, and he has to charge his patients £3 a month to continue dispensing on the NHS. Is that legal? Does it fit with the concept of a fully comprehensive national health service free at the point of use? What will the Prime Minister do to increase NHS dentistry in my constituency and elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: We want as much NHS dentistry as possible, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we have inherited a situation where the number of dentists on the NHS was slashed by the previous Government. However, as a result of what the Government have done, £1.5 billion extra is going into the NHS. That is not as much investment as we want, but at least under this Government we are getting the chance to rebuild and renew the national health service as the citizens of our country want.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When my right hon. Friend flies to Washington, he will not need the services of rocket science to observe that the United States has a democratically elected upper house, whereas we have a Heath Robinson contraption, including the absurdity of an hereditary grouse-moors-R-us component with its built-in Tory majority. When is he going to bring that disgrace to democracy to an end and move the hereditary peers out of Parliament and put them where they belong: in the millennium dome as a permanent exhibition dedicated to feudalism in all its forms?

The Prime Minister: As soon as possible. I am delighted by reports that the Conservative party is changing its policy and will back House of Lords reform. There appear to be a few heads nodding and a few heads shaking. That is about par for the course for today's Tory party. It is essential that we remove a blight on the nation's democracy—that of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords making laws. That has no place in a modern democracy, and under our Government it will be got rid of.

Mr. Hague: When the Prime Minister goes to the United States later today, will he take with him the message that there is strong support across all political parties for the backing that this country has given to the United States in its firm stand on Iraq, in its determination to enforce United Nations resolutions and

in dealing with horrific weapons of mass destruction? I am sure that he agrees with us that history has taught us not to be weak in the face of an evil dictator.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is absolutely essential that we bring Saddam Hussein back into line with the UN resolution under which he agreed that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction would be removed and destroyed. That resolution was passed by the UN, and it was an agreement that Saddam Hussein entered into: it was part of the deal that ended the Gulf war. It is absolutely essential that we enforce that agreement, otherwise we will have to deal with an even more dangerous situation a few years, or even a few months, down the line.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support and for the support of other political leaders. It is essential that we send out the firmest possible message to Saddam Hussein today and every day until he complies with those UN resolutions.

Mr. Hague: In supporting the Prime Minister's remarks, may I ask him to agree that history has also taught us that we owe it to our armed forces to exhaust every diplomatic possibility before we use force, to have clear objectives for any military action and to ensure that the armed forces have all the support they need to attain those objectives if they are called upon?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is right. We must have the clearest possible strategic and military objectives in any action that we take. Let me repeat that it is our desire—and the desire of everyone involved—to find a diplomatic solution. No one wants to use force, but history has taught us, first, that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, unless diplomacy is backed up by force it will not be successful and, secondly, that it is of paramount importance to prevent his developing the weapons of mass destruction that he has been developing in this past period. His is not a theoretical or abstract capability: he has developed a real capability over a period of time. The proof of that exists, as does the proof that he has attempted at every stage to obstruct the UN inspectors so as to prevent them from carrying out their task.
Of course we shall seek a diplomatic solution. We all want a diplomatic solution, but no one should be in any doubt that our bottom line is that those Security Council resolutions necessary for the peace of the world will be enforced.

Ms Ryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that a child in social class V is five times more likely to die before the age of 15 than a child in social class I cannot be tolerated? What are the Government doing to ensure that improving public health for all is given the highest priority?

The Prime Minister: That is the Government's priority, which is why we have introduced proposals to improve public health. Experience has taught us that problems of ill health, particularly among children, are often connected with poverty, poor housing and high levels of unemployment. That is precisely why we have set up the £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme, why we are tackling the problem of poor educational


opportunity in our schools, and why the Deputy Prime Minister has released the first £900 million that will be spent on improving the quality of housing for our people. All those measures are necessary if we are to raise the living standards and health of all our children.

Mr. Ashdown: Given Saddam Hussein's record on cruelty and international aggression, will the Prime Minister explain what he believes the consequence would be if we failed to take the actions that may ultimately be necessary to convince and persuade Saddam Hussein that he cannot flout international law and thumb his nose at the international community?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will. I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have issued a document, which we will send to all Members of Parliament today, detailing the exact weapons findings that the United Nations inspectors have made. For example, in the last six years they have uncovered some 38,000 chemical weapons, some 480,000 litres of live chemical warfare agents, 48 Scud missiles, 30 missile warheads and a vast biological weapon production plant which they then destroyed.
That is my first point. My second is that, at every stage, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi authorities have lied and deceived people about the existence of those weapons. If anything could make clearer the case for our ensuring that the UN inspectors can carry out their work, it is that evidence. That is why I say that this is not a theoretical or an abstract threat; it is not a test of international virility or machismo. It is a genuine desire to ensure that we enforce the conditions necessary for peace.
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that, if we do not stop Saddam Hussein, there is every possibility that he will develop weapons of mass destruction, and—on the basis of experience—use them.

Mr. Sedgemore: Can my right hon. Friend think of a better or more inspirational celebration of the 50th anniversary of the national health service than the historic decision to keep St. Bartholomew's open as a world-class hospital dedicated to the service of people in one of the poorest parts of the kingdom?

The Prime Minister: As my two eldest children were born at Bart's, I well appreciate the importance of keeping it as a hospital in London.
The important feature of yesterday's announcement is that it allows to develop London's long-term health care needs. It is not just a question of Bart's; it is a question of the framework for the long-term development of primary health care services, mental health services and, of course, hospitals, which gives us the chance to build a national health service that is fit for the 21st century in London.

Mr. Hawkins: When one of the Prime Minister's junior Ministers says that the green belt is "up for grabs" and other Ministers overrule the decision to reject housing development in the south-east of England—whereas in the run-up to the general election the Prime Minister and his party were saying that Labour would look after the countryside—is it not yet another Labour broken promise?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not—and there has, perhaps, been no more hypocritical or opportunist campaign than the Conservative campaign on the countryside.
Let me explain the facts. First, we are continuing precisely the policy of the last Government, apart from the fact that we are tightening it. Secondly, when in government, the Conservatives said that they wanted 50 per cent. of development to be on brown-field sites; then, in their manifesto, it was 60 per cent.; then their junior environment spokesman said that it was 75 per cent.; then the Leader of the Opposition said that it was 66 per cent. Shall I tell the House what the Conservatives did in government? In government, it was 42 per cent. Whatever the Conservatives say now, it is not what they did in government, and this Government intend to do better than they did.

Mr. Connarty: When the Prime Minister goes to the United States of America, I am sure he will congratulate the President on the surplus in their budget. I wonder whether he, bolstered by his own popularity in this country and the popularity of this Government, will suggest to the United States President that it is time in a mature democracy that they looked again at the policy of oppression of the Cuban people and particularly looked at getting rid of the Helms-Burton Bill, which prevents the people of Cuba moving smoothly to a democratic situation.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether that will be part of the conversation between us, but I am aware of my hon. Friend's views and he will be aware of the Government's position.

Mr. Burns: Does the Prime Minister still agree with his Housing Minister that a target for building on brown-field sites of 60 per cent. or more would be a recipe for disaster?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, that is not what is being said, but in any event let me make one thing clear again. There is an idea that the present Government are in some way implementing a policy that was no part of the last Government's policy. It is completely in line, apart from the fact that we are trying to tighten it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Hertfordshire?"] Conservative Members are shouting about Hertfordshire. The Leader of the Opposition went to Stevenage to say that we were bulldozing green-field sites. We have considered the matter. The building in Hertfordshire is entirely in line with what the inspectors wanted: it is not the Government's decision. Furthermore, most of what has been done in Hertfordshire was done under the previous Government. They had 14,000 houses built on green-field sites and under our proposals there are only 7,000. Yet again there is nothing but an appalling, hypocritical opportunist campaign that does not even convince the Opposition, never mind the public.

Mr. Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the flat rejection by the Commissioner for Public Appointments of Conservative party complaints about appointments by the Secretary of State for Health to national health service trusts? Does he agree that the contrast with the record of the Conservative Government, when appointments were invariably based on whether applicants were card-carrying Conservatives, is stark? Does he further agree that, however hard Tory Members try to pretend that all politicians are as bad as they are,


such bogus complaints and the scandalous debate that was initiated before lunchtime mean that their tactics will not wash? They know it, we know it and, more important, the public know it.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. They are an Opposition of trivial pursuits at the moment. The latest allegation is absolute rubbish. We wanted to make trust boards more representative of the communities they serve, and that is quite right. The Conservative health spokesman made an allegation that has been comprehensively rebutted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is about time that, one of these days, having made a false allegation, they withdrew it.

Mr. Hague: On the day of the National Farmers Union conference, will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much farming income fell in the past year?

The Prime Minister: It has fallen in the past year as a result of a number of factors. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] We are putting in as much support as we possibly can, and rather more than the Conservative Government did.

Mr. Hague: I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not know the answer. Perhaps he thinks that it is too trivial. The figures published in the past week by his Government show that farming incomes have fallen by 46 per cent. Will he acknowledge that the rural economy faces great difficulties? Has it not been the wrong time to cut the payments to the livestock sector and to reduce support for hill farmers? Will he at least give farmers a guarantee that in the coming year the forecast underspend on agriculture budgets will be put back into agriculture?

The Prime Minister: The payments to hill farmers that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are payments that we inherited from the previous Government.

Hon. Members: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Opposition Members shake their heads, but it is precisely the same amount—except that since we came to power we have increased it by £85 million. As I say, £1.6 billion is now going to support the beef industry. Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a serious situation in farming. That is why we produced the additional package. It is surely important that we manage to support farming in a way that helps it for the long term and in particular deals with the enormous problems that were left to it by the Conservative Government after BSE.

Mr. Hague: The Government cut the budget by £129 million before increasing it by £85 million, so the Prime Minister cannot boast about that. The Government have imposed millions of pounds of extra costs on family farms. They have banned beef on the bone without needing to and have presided over a massive fall in farm incomes. The only hope they give to agriculture at the moment is that many Labour party members want to buy eggs to throw at the Chancellor. All we ask for is a clear answer to my question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that money that is intended for the rural economy goes to

the rural economy? If he cannot give that guarantee he will reinforce the growing belief that the Government do not care about the countryside.

The Prime Minister: What a load of rubbish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Look at them.

Mr. Paterson: Answer!

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Paterson, save your voice for when you are outside the Chamber. Stop shouting.

The Prime Minister: First, to blame us for the crisis in the beef industry, when the Conservatives were responsible for BSE, is extraordinary. Secondly, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that, when they were in government, the Conservatives never once did what the Leader of the Opposition is now asking me to do. Thirdly, in relation to the agrimoney that the Conservatives are now saying we should seek, we are the Government who have sought extra money. I am advised that, throughout the entirety of the 20 years of Conservative government, they never once did that.
In relation to this countryside issue, as on all the others, people can tell the difference between an Opposition who are opportunistic and an Opposition who mean something. This Opposition have not a single constructive thing to say, which is why they are in opposition and we are in government.

Kate Hoey: I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of the huge support that he has in Northern Ireland for his personal determination to reach a settlement in Northern Ireland that will be accepted by everyone who is reasonable, but does he agree that there is a vital need to bolster the democratic process in Northern Ireland? Does he share the concern about—or will he at least study carefully—the BBC consultation document that, if implemented in full, would mean that United Kingdom mainland parties would no longer have political broadcasts in Northern Ireland? Does he realise how that could be perceived in Northern Ireland and, crucially, that it would mean that British citizens would feel even more excluded from democratic politics and from full and equal citizenship?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know, of course, that the broadcasters are examining the arrangements for party political broadcasting, and it is for them to take the lead in that. I understand that she has concerns about the proposals and why she puts those concerns forward, but it is clear that these are matters for the broadcasters. I am sure that they will have heard what she has said and the remarks that I have made.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of his flight to America with his economic adviser, Mr. Gavyn Davies, to ask him about his latest report on the UK economy in which he claims that there is plenty of scope for additional public spending, given the war chest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is building? When he asks Mr. Davies about that, perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to deal with the problems that are faced by farmers in my constituency, the elderly and those who receive cold weather payments


with regard to the crisis in public spending. Will he ask Mr. Davies to advise him on how to access the money that is in the war chest?

The Prime Minister: Gavyn Davies has not, as far as I am aware, supported the Liberal Democrats' claims of some great war chest. On cold weather payments, the Government are giving £200 million of help to pensioners, including £50 directly to pensioner family households who are on income support.
In relation to public spending, of course we understand that there are public services that need more investment. Indeed, we have contributed a substantial amount of additional investment to our schools and to our hospitals, but it is important that we do it noting that we must not go back to the days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when, after people said, "There is enough money to do whatever we want. There is no problem with inflation," mistakes were made by the previous Government and we ended up with interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year and record borrowing.
It is precisely to avoid that situation that we are being cautious on public spending. We are right to be. Of course we will invest, but we will do it when we can and consistent with the economy's having stable economic management for the future.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Hesford: What plans he has to visit the Wirral, West constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit the Wirral.

Mr. Hesford: Perhaps I could tempt my right hon. Friend to come to Wirral, West. He will be aware that my constituency has the great good fortune to have been chosen as a pathfinder area under the Government's new deal scheme. Will he join me in wishing all those who are concerned with the delivery of the scheme every success? Hundreds of youngsters in my constituency will be assisted by the scheme and given hope and opportunity where none previously existed, particularly after 18 wasted years under the Conservative party.

The Prime Minister: The pathfinder projects are going very well, and I pay tribute to the part that my hon. Friend and others have played in getting them under way in their constituencies. In Sheffield last week, I visited some people who are now going through the new deal gateway. Those young people, often for the first time in their lives, have real enthusiasm and commitment because they have the chance of a decent job or a decent skill. When we use their talent and ability, we help not only them but the entire country, which is why the programme is so important and right. It is a pity that it does not have the support of the Conservative Opposition.

Engagements

Mr. Alan Simpson: I know that the west has its own explaining to do about who armed Saddam Hussein, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that there have to be some clear military and

political objectives to underpin any strike against Iraq. In the current situation, they could range from eliminating or deposing Saddam Hussein to destroying the military and industrial stockpiles or the biological and chemical weapons. Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what objectives he would sign up to in the name of this country and what calculation of civilian casualties has been made as the cost of doing so?

The Prime Minister: The objectives are absolutely clear. They are to bring Saddam Hussein back into line with UN Security Council resolutions so that we can continue to destroy the chemical, nuclear and biological weapon capability that he wants to develop.
I emphasise yet again that it is important to realise that at every stage there has been deceit and deception on the part of Saddam Hussein. I shall give the House a couple of examples. Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure until we discovered that it had the capability to produce it on a huge scale and that four tonnes had in fact been produced. I have already mentioned a factory that was able to produce 50,000 litres of anthrax and botulinus. Iraq claimed that it was for animal feed. It was only when one of its leading people defected to a neighbouring country that we discovered the truth and it admitted what was happening, although it had been denying it for four years. It is for those reasons that inspectors have to be allowed in.
People keep wondering whether we cannot give Saddam Hussein a way out, but all he has to do is to keep to the agreement that he originally made and let the inspectors in to do their work so they can see that what he says is happening is actually happening. It must be right to ensure he does that. We will try every diplomatic avenue to ensure that the matter is resolved. If it can be resolved peacefully, so much the better—no one wants to take military action—but resolved it must be, and resolved in compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Mrs. May: Will the Prime Minister tell us his target for building on brown-field sites? Does he think it should be increased to 60 per cent. or above? If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly better than 42 per cent., which was achieved by the Conservative Government. The purpose of the consultation paper is precisely to ensure that we receive the various representations. We will then, in the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will make, declare our position for the future.
We have always made it clear that we will protect the green belt. In fact, there has been an increase in the amount of green-belt land since 1 May, so we do not need any lessons from the Conservative Opposition about the protection of the green belt. Indeed, it was the first Labour Government after the war who introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which provided the first such protection, and it will be the new Labour Government who in this area, as in so many others, will clean up the mess left by the Conservatives.

Mrs. McGuire: On the fourth day of enactment of the new legislation banning hand guns in Britain, may I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the


residents of Dunblane, which is in my constituency, for his commitment to the cause, and may I also thank the House for ensuring that the ban was enacted? Even given that firearms have legitimate uses, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will consistently review the procedure and regulatory framework for the ownership of firearms to keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated weaponry in private use?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance—we shall keep the regime under tight scrutiny. I am delighted that, as a result of the House's vote, we managed to put through the ban on hand guns. I believe that that, in some measure, repaid our debt to the people of Dunblane.

Millennium Compliance

Mr. David Atkinson: What initiatives he is taking in the European Union to encourage action to ensure the millennium compliancy of computer systems.

The Prime Minister: We are taking action under Britain's European Union presidency to deal with the problems of the so-called millennium bug. We are not only setting up meetings in Europe to publicise the dangers that the millennium bug poses to our companies, but ensuring at a European level that action is taken across member states to increase awareness of it.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister plan to discuss with President Clinton the letter that he reportedly received from the President urging that the introduction of the single currency be delayed until after 2000 because the computer systems involved would be not only single currency non-compliant but, more crucially, millennium non-compliant, which would cause absolute chaos?
If the Prime Minister is as serious about the issue as he claims, why do his Whips continue to object to my private Member's Bill, which would do much to protect British business from the millennium bug? Will he ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading on Friday 13 February, and will he read a copy of the Bill on Concorde tonight?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the last point is no. We shall not ask the Whips to reconsider their opposition to The hon. Gentleman's Bill, for a very simple reason: his Bill would require companies both to check their systems and to report their proposed action in the annual report and accounts. We believe that that is an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement and that it is not a sensible way in which to proceed.
It is far better to do what we are doing. We are spending more than double the amount spent by the previous Government in relation to the millennium bug and the threat it poses. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is chairing a ministerial group to bring together work in the public and private sectors and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is monitoring progress in central Government. We are raising the issue not merely at the Group of Eight but under Britain's presidency of the European Union. As far as I am aware, President Clinton has made no request to delay the introduction of the single currency.
The millennium bug is a serious issue. It could cause problems for our companies, particularly smaller ones. It is necessary that they realise that, if they do not change their systems, they will face very great difficulties. I should have thought that both sides of the House can agree about the importance of making it clear to companies that they themselves bear the ultimate responsibility for bringing themselves into line. We shall do everything that we can as a Government to publicise this issue and to give it impetus both here and abroad.

Director General of Oflot (Resignation)

Mr. Francis Maude: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Yesterday, I met the Director General of the National Lottery, Mr. Peter Davis, to discuss the issues of confidence in the lottery arising from the Branson libel case. We agreed that the likelihood of continuing controversy surrounding the running of the national lottery would increase if he continued in his post.
To ensure that public confidence in the lottery is maintained, Mr. Davis felt it was right to tender his resignation. I accepted his resignation, and immediately asked Mr. John Stoker, the deputy director general, to assume the director general's duties while we seek to make a new appointment to replace Mr. Davis. Mr. Stoker accepted. Mr. Davis will remain in post until next Monday. I have already set in motion the procedures that will be necessary to advertise openly for a permanent successor.
I make three issues very clear. First, it was Mr. Davis's decision to tender his resignation; it was my decision whether to accept it. I agreed with Mr. Davis that this was the right thing to do in the circumstances. Secondly, I stressed yesterday when I announced Mr. Davis's resignation and repeat today that there is no question mark whatever against his integrity. Mr. Davis's readiness to put the public reputation of the lottery before his own personal position bears testimony to his sense of duty as a public servant.
Thirdly, the reasons for Mr. Davis's actions are quite clear. The success of the lottery depends on continuing public confidence in its operation and its regulation. He and I both agreed that, if he continued as regulator, the Office of the Director General would be at the centre of continuing controversy, which would undermine confidence in that office and in the lottery itself. We both agreed that it was right to act before any damage could be done.
The appointment of a new director general will provide the opportunity for a fresh start and ensure that the lottery continues to be respected and successful. Mr. Stoker's immediate priority will be to carry on the work that Mr. Davis had set in hand to ensure that Mr. Guy Snowden will no longer be involved in the management of our lottery and will not be in a position to draw any direct financial benefit from it through his involvement with GTech.
Mr. Stoker will also need to study carefully the court proceedings and evidence from the Branson case, and the implications that arise from it for the relationship between Mr. Snowden, GTech and Camelot. That is the job of the regulator. I have not interfered, and will not interfere, in it, but I will continue to take a close personal interest.
The actions that I have taken, together with the proposals for reform that we are bringing forward in the National Lottery Bill, will ensure that the lottery does

indeed command the respect and support of the British people. That is the Government's commitment to the House.

Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the national lottery is, and continues to be, the most successful and efficient in the world, raising more for good causes and in tax than any other?
On the key question whether Mr. Davis was pushed or resigned spontaneously, how does the Secretary of State reconcile stories in today's papers, clearly based on Government briefing, with his assertion this morning that Mr. Davis's resignation was spontaneous, and Mr. Davis's statement, which was repeated three times yesterday morning, that he would not resign? Is it entirely spontaneous speculation in The Times that
The National Lottery regulator … was dismissed last night on the direct orders of Tony Blair.
Mr. Davis was forced to go during a marathon meeting with Chris Smith"?
Is that spontaneous, or was it based on a direct Government briefing?
If, as the Secretary of State claimed this morning, Mr. Davis changed his mind over the course of yesterday morning, why was it necessary to delay the announcement so that Mr. Davis could break the news to his family? It would surely have been already on his mind. What took place during the morning that changed Mr. Davis's mind?
In the meeting, who was the first to raise the issue of resignation? Was it raised first by Mr. Davis, or first by the Secretary of State or his officials? Will the Secretary of State say categorically whether there was any discussion between the Prime Minister's office and the Secretary of State or his office before the meeting with Mr. Davis?
If the regulator was pushed—as seems certain, despite the Secretary of State's somewhat wriggling denial this morning—what was the alleged impropriety, given the Secretary of State's statement that
there is no question mark
over Mr. Davis's integrity?
The Secretary of State has raised the issue of public confidence in the national lottery. Does he have a better measure of confidence than the public's readiness to buy national lottery tickets? Will he confirm that sales for the mid-week draw up to last night—before Mr. Davis's resignation—were up by 7 per cent. from the previous week? Is he aware that, of 2,000 calls to the national lottery line yesterday, three were about the trial and only one was a complaint? What evidence is there of the sort of threat to public confidence on which the Secretary of State relied in accepting Mr. Davis's resignation?
Is Mr. Davis free to speak out on yesterday's events, or is he subject to a confidentiality agreement? Can the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Davis's pay-off of more than £42,000 is to come directly out of the money earmarked for good causes? Will he now publish the minutes of yesterday's meeting? If he will not, does he not understand that many will conclude that he has something to hide?
Is not the truth that Mr. Davis was persuaded to resign; that, to convey the impression of decisive action, the press was briefed that he had been dismissed; but that, because there were no legal grounds for his dismissal,


the Secretary of State is maintaining—to general incredulity, I have to say—that the resignation was completely spontaneous?
Have not the Downing street spin doctors left the Secretary of State to swing in the wind? This is no longer an issue of what he or I think about Mr. Davis's judgment, or whether Mr. Davis should still be in his job; it is about whether Ministers are telling the truth. Unless he is prepared to publish the minutes of yesterday's meeting and lay the matter to rest, it may soon be an issue of whether the Secretary of State himself should still be in his job.

Mr. Smith: I am tempted to say, "Oh, dear." I had expected some sensible questions about the future of the national lottery, about its proper regulation and about the way in which we can ensure public confidence in its operation. However, we got none of that.
I shall answer some of the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. First, he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The situation is clear, and has been set out by me both in the statement that I made last night and in innumerable interviews that I have given since. It has also been confirmed by the official spokesman for the Prime Minister in his Lobby briefing this morning that Mr. Davis decided to offer his resignation and I accepted it.
That is what happened. As for the record of the meeting, I issued a statement following that meeting; that is a public document, and it is the definitive record of the meeting. As for the delay in making the announcement, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should not have applauded me for having ensured that Mr. Davis had time to speak with his family after the discussion, and after he had made his decision.
In answer to the question whether there was contact between myself and the Prime Minister—yes, indeed, there was contact on a regular basis yesterday between myself and the Prime Minister, in the normal way, for me to inform him of what was happening and what my intentions were.
On the question of public confidence and tickets being sold, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the important thing is that we maintain confidence in the lottery for the future. The crucial matter, which I had hoped that he would be interested in—but clearly he is not—is to ensure that the lottery is being run with 100 per cent. propriety. That is the crucial matter, and the new director general will address himself to ensuring that it happens.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ludicrous and banal nit-picking that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench comes ill from a party that created a structure for the national lottery that has resulted in bribery and corruption? Is not the result of the structure that the Conservatives created a situation in which the operating company grabs for itself every spare penny that it can, including the interest on undistributed prizes, and charges the stupid BBC £550,000 a year for the privilege of publicising Camelot—so that the people who operate the lottery can reward themselves with astronomical sums of money?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House the categorical position of Her Majesty's Government remains as stated in the Labour party manifesto last year:
When the current contract runs out, Labour will seek an efficient not-for-profit operator to ensure that the maximum sums go to good causes"?
Will he further consult the Chancellor about the possibility of buying out Camelot before that date, using the profits that will accrue to pay for the sum? Will he assure the House that it is the Government's intention that we should have a national lottery in fact as well as in name, and that the people's lottery will in future belong to the people?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes a series of forceful points. He might have added that it also ill becomes the Conservative party to raise this matter, given that a former Conservative Minister of Sport is currently a £5,000-a-month consultant for GTech and that a former Secretary of State for Social Services is currently on the GTech board.
In response to my right hon. Friend's two main questions, I can tell him, first, that the interest on the prize shortfall is now-1 am pleased to say—coming into the pot for good causes. That is as a direct result of my intervention some months back, when the Camelot directors' bonuses were announced. Secondly, it remains our intention to seek an efficient not-for-profit operator for the lottery after 2001, and to make sure that the maximum sums possible go to the good causes.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Branson judgment may not have called into question the integrity of the director general, earlier hearings by the Public Accounts Committee demonstrated that the company which he was responsible for selecting, GTech, was engaged in extremely unattractive and immoral activities in the United States, of which the director general was aware when he made that decision?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not only the judgment of the director general which is flawed but the legislation for which the Conservative Government were responsible, which gave the director general not only the task of appointing the company to run the lottery but the subsequent duty of regulating the company which he had appointed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those functions should be separated, and that, in dealing with such vast sums of money going to public causes, it would be appropriate to have the lottery regulated not by an individual alone, but by a council—perhaps along the lines of the Gaming Board for Great Britain?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that the current legislation, put in place by the Conservative Government, is flawed. That is precisely why, in the National Lottery Bill, we propose to reform the way in which the lottery operator is selected.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he does not have to explain why the regulator went yesterday—it is the Conservative party which must explain why he did not go two years ago, when the Public Accounts Committee exposed the fact that he had taken the use of a private aircraft belonging to a dubious American company that he was supposed to be monitoring and regulating?
To be positive about the future, can I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that he does not have all the powers he needs to monitor the effectiveness of the regulator, which is one of his duties? He asked if he could be given extra powers. Will my right hon. Friend table an amendment to the National Lottery Bill to introduce those powers?

Mr. Smith: I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend makes in some detail.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The Secretary of State was selective in choosing which of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to answer. Will he now answer this question: at the meeting, who first raised the issue of Mr. Davis's resignation—Mr. Davis or the Secretary of State?

Mr. Smith: The matter was discussed mutually between us.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the departure of Peter Davis was inevitable, because of what happened when the Public Accounts Committee discovered how he had accepted free flights from those to whom he was awarding the contract, and because of the subsequent bribery allegations that were proved in court? It was inevitable, and my right hon. Friend took the right action. Will he now consider separating and dividing the powers of the regulator who looks after the conduct of the industry from those who award the contract, because the regulator will be in the position of wanting to defend his own decision, rather than regulating the industry itself?

Mr. Smith: It is precisely because of concern on that point, which has been frequently expressed and which was raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) today, that we are proposing in the National Lottery Bill the establishment of an advisory panel to give guidance to the director general in the selection of any future operator. It is to address that concern that we have come forward with that specific proposal. It may well be that Parliament wishes to examine that and look at other options, but at least it will make for a much better process than the one that went on last time.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the most remarkable achievements of the lottery was the technological factors that went into getting it up and running within a very short time and running it continuously, with satellite uplinks and many other miracles of communication? Is it not the case that Richard Branson—admirable though he may be—cannot even make his trains run on time, and is therefore unlikely to meet those technological challenges? Will he pay tribute to the companies that were involved in ensuring that ours is one of the most technologically advanced lotteries in the world?

Mr. Smith: I certainly endorse the observation that the establishment of the lottery and its running since has been an efficient operation—no one could deny that. As for Mr. Branson, I think that I distinctly heard him say on Monday evening that he no longer intended to put in a proposal to run the lottery in future.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend ask the regulator to look at the obscene profits made by Camelot under rules laid down by itself? Is he aware that Camelot pays only 5 per cent. commission to newsagents, many of whom have to work long hours and take as little as £30 or £40 a week, while at the same time Camelot has been making a profit of more than £100,000 a year on each of its employees—probably the biggest profit ratio in the country—and the directors pay themselves huge amounts of money?
Can the new regulator not look at ways of using some of those profits to help newsagents and ensuring that there is a proper system of appeal, so that, when they sell their shop, newsagents can sell on the franchise? There is little, if anything, that the consumer or the person who plays the lottery can do to make an impression on Camelot. Will he ask the regulator to crack down on that sort of thing?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about newsagents and the way in which a franchise can be handed on from one to another. We made it clear in the White Paper we issued in July and in everything we have said since that we shall seek not only a not-for-profit operator for the lottery after the franchise becomes available, but to maximise returns to the good causes.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that we should be extremely grateful to Mr. Richard Branson for pursuing his legal case, because, if he had not been prepared to do that, the circumstances would not have arisen whereby the Secretary of State could take action to restore public confidence in the lottery? Although it is welcome that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that we shall see the end of Camelot's licence to print money for itself, will he explain to the House why it took one individual pursuing a legal case to provide the opportunity to restore public confidence in the national lottery?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, wish to reflect on the conduct of Government up to 1 May last year. As for the present, as soon as it was obvious that the court had reached its verdict and that public confidence needed to be restored, I sought a meeting with the director general; the discussion we had resulted in his decision to tender his resignation. That was the right course of action in the circumstances; it was honourable of him to decide to take that course of action. It is clear from the questioning by Conservative Members that they do not think that it was the right course of action.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most remarkable thing about the exchange of views this afternoon is that, once again, we have another demonstration of the Tory Front-Bench team flogging a dead horse. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was paid more than £100,000 by a City firm because he has good judgment—he is certainly not displaying it today.
Today's private notice question was never really necessary; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to get rid of Mr. Davis, whether or not his departure was spontaneous. If there was a telephone call in the night, so be it. It sounds as if somebody else's instincts were on the ball. I have one final suggestion: before the contract reaches its expiry date, my right hon. Friend should get rid of Camelot, which would make the lottery even more popular.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has got the right hon. Gentleman bang to rights.

Mr. Alan Clark: Why is the Secretary of State so protective of Mr. Davis? It is a matter of public record that he behaved in an improper way at least twice. Is it not a fact that GTech, a partial shareholder in Camelot, was twice subject to a federal investigation on account of its Mafia connections? If the Secretary of State can get past the officials who advised his predecessor to give Camelot the contract, he will probably be able to find quite enough documentation to take the contract away from it immediately, which is what he should do.

Mr. Smith: I shall be very interested to observe the discussions between the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on the matter. Mr. Davis was found by the Public Accounts Committee to have been unwise in his judgment. That was a matter on which he was exonerated by the then Conservative Secretary of State.
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about GTech, perhaps he will have a word with his former Conservative colleagues who act for GTech.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's actions. He took decisive action, which, out there in the public—certainly among the good burghers of Rochdale—was very welcome and long overdue. I also welcome the Bill's provisions that will put right some of the wrongs.
If Conservative Members were listening and cared that much about the lottery on which they have asked for a statement, they would also welcome those provisions. One such measure is the advisory panel, which is much needed and long overdue; another involves the need for much more transparency. When the next contract is given out, will there be as much transparency as possible so that everyone, inside and outside the House, can ensure that they are truly supporting the people's lottery, both before and after the contract is given?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I shall bring the questioning back to the conduct of this Labour Government. Did any Minister, or an official on behalf of a Minister, ask Mr. Davis to resign, seek to persuade him to resign, or suggest that he resign?

Mr. Smith: I have already explained clearly: we discussed the situation arising from the court case; it was a mutual decision that it was in the interests of the national lottery that he tender his resignation and I accept it.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 99.9 per cent. of the people of this country think that he acted yesterday with diligence, and exercised his responsibilities fully and fairly? However, they are puzzled about why the Opposition are seeking to defend Mr. Davis and GTech.
Has my right hon. Friend read the remarkable article in The Times today, which links GTech not to former Ministers, as he said, but to a serving Front-Bench spokesman, the hereditary peer Lord Moynihan, in the House of Lords? Given the allegations made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) about GTech and Mafia, will he be instructing his officials to look at the connections between the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords, the Conservative party and GTech, so that the full truth of the matter can be put before the public?

Mr. Smith: I do indeed find the actions of the Opposition somewhat puzzling. There is a term in military usage—friendly fire—which describes falling under a hail of one's own bullets.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Given that the Select Committee inquiry on the royal opera house demonstrated that there were several versions of the meeting between the Secretary of State and Lord Chadlington, will the Secretary of State be surprised if there is some scepticism about any so-called definitive report that he may have issued about his meeting with Peter Davis?
When the right hon. Gentleman first became Secretary of State and brought in the directors of Camelot to demand that they give up their bonuses, is it not the case that he failed? When he had meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to defend the good causes and prevent the money from being plundered for the health and education budgets because the Chancellor's sums did not add up, is it not the case that he failed? Has he not made Peter Davis a scapegoat to try to preserve his own political career, come the next Cabinet reshuffle?

Mr. Smith: When I had a discussion with the directors of Camelot several months ago, I succeeded in getting £24 million extra into the good causes arising from the lottery as a result of those discussions.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend ask the acting Director General of Oflot to satisfy himself, and in turn to satisfy my right hon. Friend, that the directors of GTech are and remain fit and proper persons to be part of the consortium running the lottery; and if not, to use powers to end the contract forthwith?

Mr. Smith: That is indeed one of the duties of the director general. I look to the new director general to exercise those duties with the greatest vigour and care.

Mr. Damian Green: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to distance himself from some of the more rabid anti-lottery statements that have come from hon. Members behind him this afternoon? In particular, will he acknowledge that the lottery under the running of Camelot has raised millions and millions of pounds for good causes, and that he would not want to put that at risk? If he is re-awarding the contract, is it more important to award it to a not-for-profit organisation than to guarantee a continuation of the large sums of money going to the good causes? Which does the right hon. Gentleman consider more important?

Mr. Smith: I have heard no rabid anti-lottery statements this afternoon from the Benches behind me. I hope that, with a new bidding process post-2001, a higher percentage will come to the good causes than does at present.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the past few days, many employees of GTech and Camelot who work and reside in my constituency will feel sad and let down by the indefensible actions of Guy Snowden? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need an organisation that will ensure the greatest amount of money to good causes, and which has the greatest experience in running a national lottery?
Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who work in those organisations that, if they can show, when the licence comes up for renewal, that they have expertise and are willing to accept the Government's change towards a new national and people's lottery, they will not be ruled out of bidding for the contract?

Mr. Smith: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will be open to any bids to run the lottery post-2001. We will assess those bids on the basis of what is best for the good causes and the future of the lottery.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State not accept the truth: he does not have the guts to tell the House today that he sacked the director general? His weasel words are a cover for the fact that he does not have the guts to tell the public what he did.
Does the Secretary of State agree that he has invented the lack of public confidence in the lottery? The truth is that, far from there being a lack of confidence, the national lottery enjoys huge public confidence, because it works. Not a single ticket holder has been let down. That is due in large measure to the fact that GTech had the technology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, and it has delivered to the people. Yesterday the Secretary of State staged a pathetic performance in response to the political requirements of his master at No. 10.

Mr. Smith: There is one small problem with making the statement to the House that the hon. Gentleman requires: it is not true. Mr. Davis offered his resignation, and I accepted it.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the

lottery organisers have made a cumulative profit of £169 million on an investment of £49.5 million. That is clearly an excessive profit. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new regulator is given a remit to regulate the organisers' profits?

Mr. Smith: We cannot change the terms of the contract that was awarded by the previous Government. However, I repeat what we said in July's White Paper: the open-ended profit mechanism, which is at the heart of the current contract, will not be entertained in any future contract.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State understand that we must ensure that independent regulators, in whatever sphere, are not at the mercy of press hounding? They should resign—or be called upon to resign—when they fail in their duties.
Will the Secretary of State make clear in what ways he thinks Mr. Davis failed in his duties? When the Secretary of State speaks of a lack of public confidence, he may be seeking to generate that lack of confidence in Camelot. Does he acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made clear, Camelot has been very successful and produced much more money for good causes than was promised in the original licence? It runs what is widely regarded as the most successful lottery in the world.

Mr. Smith: I have made it extremely clear several times that there is no question mark over Mr. Davis's integrity. He chose to offer his resignation in order to maintain public confidence in the lottery. That is the important point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that ambition.

Mr. Mike Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before the lottery contract was awarded to Camelot, Peter Davis flew around the United States in a private jet owned by GTech? The day after he awarded the contract to Camelot, he took the then chairman, Sir Ron Dearing, to one side and said that he was aware of the nefarious activities of GTech in the United States, and did not want to see them repeated in the United Kingdom. The events of this week prove that that is what occurred, which made Mr. Davis's position untenable. The only problem remaining for me is that the Opposition do not recognise that fact, but stand by him.

Mr. Smith: I look to the new regulator to make absolutely certain that there can be no question of any impropriety in the running of the national lottery or any of its component parts.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: On a point of clarification, the Secretary of State said that he spoke to the Prime Minister about his intentions. What intentions did he speak of, and did he intend to settle an old score?

Mr. Smith: No. I informed the Prime Minister of the discussion that I intended to have with Mr. Davis, as I wished to keep the Prime Minister informed in the normal manner.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the new regulator will investigate the whole sorry tale of how Camelot came to be awarded the contract in the first place, including the very close financial relationships between the now discredited GTech and Conservative politicians?

Mr. Smith: The new regulator will be required to fulfil his duties under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. That will entail examining the relationships between the different companies involved and the probity with which the lottery is being run. That is the proper province of the regulator.

Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill had its Second Reading last November and went into Committee in December, and we have been considering it in Committee ever since. So far, as of today, we are on line 2 of clause 1. However, today we adjourned in some disarray because the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), informed the Committee that, in the Government's view, not only is clause 1 defective, but the Bill is defective in a number of other instances. He undertook to advise the Committee by next week how the Bill could be put into proper order.
Two points of order arise for you, Madam Speaker. First, are the Government, or should they be, neutral on private Members' Bills? If they are neutral, what are Ministers doing giving advice to promoters of such Bills on how to put their Bills in order? If the Government are not neutral, why, given that the Bill has been in Committee since last December, have not the Home Office and Ministers tendered their advice much earlier?
That brings me to my second point for you, Madam Speaker. You will know that time for private Members' Bills on the Floor of the House and in Committee is finite. The longer we are in Committee, the less time there is for other private Members' Bills to go into Committee and complete their stages. There is now every possibility that a number of private Members' Bills, which have had a Second Reading in the House, will not reach the statute book for lack of time, because this Committee is hogging Standing Committee C.
In those circumstances—they are very unusual circumstances, given that all the work we have done to date has been otiose—I understand that you, Madam Speaker, have the power to set up a Special Standing Committee, and you may wish to consider doing that. Otherwise, many hon. Members will feel aggrieved that we have been hogging so much time.
The Bill is a complete shambles. We have been sitting for weeks now, and all the work that we have done to date, we are now told, is otiose. That is a disgrace to the House.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, serve on that Committee, and that was not the advice given by the Minister today. The Minister said that the Bill could be improved, not that all the work that we had done was irrelevant and must be disregarded. The Committee has agreed a new sittings motion allowing it to sit twice a week, so that, further to your comments in the House last week, it can make progress.

Madam Speaker: I shall not allow a debate on this, because, as the House knows, I do not get involved in the details of Committee work unless the Chairman of a Committee were to approach me to do so, and the Chairman of this Committee has not done so. However, I take seriously the points of order that have been made.
I understand that, this morning, the Minister suggested that there was a likelihood of some amendments being forthcoming from the Home Office to assist with


clause 1. I was not aware that the Committee ended in uproar. My understanding is that the Committee did not oppose the motion to suspend the sitting until next week, when it wished to sit both morning and afternoon.
I repeat that it is not the role of the Speaker to get involved in Committee work unless asked to do so by the Chairman. However, I want Committees to run smoothly, and I shall make it my business to see what help I can give to move the matter along speedily and with proper procedures.

BILL PRESENTED

RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES AND NURSING HOMES (MEDICAL RECORDS)

Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to require persons registered to carry on residential care homes or nursing homes to keep records concerning medicines and their use; to provide for inspection of such records by medical practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Electricity (Maintenance of Supplies)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require electricity supply companies to compensate customers whose supply is interrupted and not restored within specified time periods.
The House will already be well aware of the considerable problems experienced in northern and central Wales and elsewhere with regard to the breakdown of electricity supply during the Christmas period. I was fortunate to secure an Adjournment debate on the issue on 21 January, during which other hon. Members from Wales and elsewhere added their experiences of similar problems. I do not intend to repeat the detail of that debate, but it may be helpful to highlight some of the main themes.
First, I remind the House that thousands of households in Wales lost their electricity supply over Christmas, hundreds were off for more than three days, dozens were off for as long as five days, and, in some instances, the loss was for as long as eight days. Although we criticise the performance of the supplier company, MANWEB, we recognise the strenuous efforts of its workers, who laboured in difficult weather to restore power. Likewise, although we criticise the company for having an inadequate facility to respond to telephone inquiries from those who lost their power supplies, we pay tribute to the staff who sacrificed their Christmas holidays to try to help out in the offices.
The supply failures occurred on 24 December following a "severe weather watch" issued by the Meterological Office on 20 December warning of the dangers, particularly on Christmas eve. In areas where cables had been put underground or investment made in upgrading the supply lines, supplies were maintained, but thousands of homes lost supplies. Half the losses were because of trees or branches falling on to supply lines. Trees in our area are trimmed only once every five years.
When the electricity supply was lost, my constituents, and many others, had immense difficulty making telephone contact with the supplier company. It took days to get the electricity restored. Constituents are convinced that that was partly because of inadequate investment and partly because of cuts in staff, particularly engineers.
The loss of supply hit farmers hard, who are dependent on electricity to keep milk cool or to run milking machines to milk the cows. Many vulnerable people, some in nursing homes, were put at risk because no electricity supply was available for their life support machines. Hundreds of people lost the entire contents of their deep freezes. All are looking for compensation.
MANWEB, the supplier company in our area, does not recognise the need to pay compensation. A loophole in the Electricity Act 1989 lets supply companies off the hook in what is termed "severe weather". MANWEB is, however, making good-will payments, although, by doing so rather than paying compensation, it avoids bumping up its annual figure for breaches of guaranteed standards. In other words, because of a loophole, its performance is not properly recorded.
Incidentally, another failure in the present compensation rules was drawn to my attention by a correspondent from Somerset: if people live in a private


park, for example, with caravans or chalets, and the electricity is lost, the compensation goes to the park owner, not the people who have suffered the loss of supply.
The objective of the Bill is to maximise the maintenance of electricity supplies. It has been made abundantly clear to us that the supplier companies now work in a commercial environment. They exist to make money, not just to provide an electricity supply service. That is clearly seen from the way in which such companies diversify into other sectors, such as water. Indeed, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, who replied to my Adjournment debate, acknowledged that when he said:
we are concerned that utility companies are putting profits and shareholders before service to their customers."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1120.]
It is therefore my contention that the supply companies will maximise the attention they give to maintaining supplies to their customers when, and only when, they suffer punitive financial penalties for not doing so—in other words, when the cost of paying compensation is greater than the cost of taking the necessary steps to safeguard supplies.
We want the companies to do three things: first, to invest substantially more to upgrade the distribution network to reduce and, I hope, eliminate power cuts; secondly, to maintain their supply lines more effectively, having more rigorous planned maintenance and tree-trimming programmes; and, thirdly, to respond more quickly to breakdowns in supply.
The first objective requires a greater capital investment programme by the supplier companies, and the second and third need more engineering staff, locally—I emphasise locally—based so that they can respond to the needs in their areas. All three of those objectives require money to be spent by the companies on looking after their customers rather than their shareholders. That means not reducing charges to some customers at the cost of failing to maintain supplies to others, usually in rural areas.
The mechanism envisaged in the Bill would stiffen the compensation regime so that it starts to provide significant compensation to customers, including commercial customers, and to ensure that those who suffer the most get the full benefit of the compensation. It will close the loopholes whereby the supply companies avoid paying compensation, although they may make more limited good-will payments, as MANWEB has.
I raised the matter with the Office of Electricity Regulation. In his reply, Professor Littlechild relies on the present guaranteed standards payments, but acknowledges that they are inoperable
in circumstances outside the company's control, such as exceptionally severe weather.

That is not the wording in the statutory instrument, which refers merely to "severe weather conditions". The companies appear to be working to the wording in the regulations, not that in Professor Littlechild's letter.
There is, moreover, no definition of "severe weather" in the regulations. There is no obligation in the primary legislation to have such a regime; it is merely permissive. To be fair, Professor Littlechild tells me that he is considering whether there is a case
for further tightening or extending these standards".
We accept that a reasonable period must be allowed for engineers to reconnect supplies after storms. We believe that 24 hours—the threshold in current regulations that triggers the present flawed compensatory payments—is reasonable. We propose to keep that threshold and the £40 initial payment—which may shortly go up to £50—for when the electricity supply is off for 24 hours, but to make it virtually mandatory. After the first 24 hours, we want a mandatory compensation payment of £10 for each hour after the first 24 without supply. The Bill would achieve that by amending sections 37 to 42 of the Electricity Act 1989.
If such a regime had been in place, my constituents who were without electricity for three days would have received £525 compensation, not a £50 good-will payment. Compensation at that rate would force supply companies to get their act together and minimise periods of lost supply. Through the Bill, we are helping to facilitate such a change, using the proposed augmented compensation as a lever to encourage companies to ensure that supplies are maintained. Other provisions in the Bill will help ensure greater emphasis on maintaining supplies.
At Christmas, many people in Wales and elsewhere suffered misery and financial loss because of the failure of the electricity supply companies to avoid breaks of supply and to re-establish it in a reasonably quick time frame. I hope that the Bill will help show the direction in which the regulator and the Government will have to go to avoid in similar occurrences.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alasdair Morgan, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mrs. Betty Williams and Mr. Alex Salmond.

ELECTRICITY (MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLIES)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to require electricity supply companies to compensate customers whose supply is interrupted and not restored within specified time periods: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed [Bill 117].

Police Grant Report

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99 (HC 492), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.
This is my first opportunity to open a debate on the funding of the police service in England and Wales, and I am very pleased to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his Christmas message to police officers across the country, we all owe the police a debt of gratitude for the risks that they take on our behalf, and for the quiet professionalism with which they go about their daily duties. He went on to say that the Government have a duty to give the police their full support, and to provide them, as best they can, with the resources and powers that they require to enable them to do their job effectively.
I referred to resources and powers. We shall debate powers later in the Session, particularly when we come to the radical proposals for tackling crime in England, Wales and Scotland contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. Today's debate is not about powers: it is about resources.
At the general election, we were careful not to make rash promises about police numbers and police funding that we could not deliver. Since coming to office, we have been equally mindful of the need not to make impossible commitments on increasing police numbers. One of the previous Government's mistakes—and there were many—was to plan and project increases in police numbers, when in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 they had handed to chief constables and their police authorities the freedom to decide whether to use available resources on recruiting more police officers or on other expenditure such as information technology or equipment.
It is a matter of record that the number of police officers in England and Wales fell from 127,627 in March 1992 to 127,158 at the end of March 1997, which is a loss of 469 officers instead of the additional 1,000 officers that were promised for the 12 months following March 1992.
I do not intend to fall into the trap of promising extra officers. Of course police numbers are important; but far more important is the number of officers available for duty at any one time, and the quality of service that they provide to the public.
Last week's Audit Commission report makes interesting reading. It rightly emphasises the important link between funding and performance. It makes the point that performance sometimes does not reflect the level of funding, as one would expect. We must ensure that we get best value for money from the resources provided to all public services, including the police. We shall continue to work closely with forces and police authorities to ensure that that is achieved in the police service. We are examining funding in the context of the value-for-money study of police efficiency that is taking place as part of the fundamental review of all aspects of public expenditure. In the meantime, we shall do all we can to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their key part in preventing and cutting crime, and in working with local authorities and other agencies to tackle crime and disorder.
Money is tight, and we are committed to remaining within the previous Government's overall spending plans while we undertake our comprehensive spending review. Nevertheless, the police service in England and Wales will be able to increase its spending for the coming financial year by £258 million, which is an increase of 3.7 per cent. As a result, the total revenue spending power of the police may rise to £7.15 billion. That is a healthy increase at a time of public spending constraint. It shows the Government's commitment to helping the police build on their success in tackling crime. Overall, the settlement gives police authorities the finance to cover pay and pension increases.
Let me explain how we reached the 3.7 per cent. figure. Under proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last December and restated on 2 February, all police authorities will be subject to a single capping criterion that will allow a budget increase of 3.2 per cent., with the standard proviso that authorities set budgets no more than 12.5 per cent. above the sum of their standard spending assessments and principal grant under the funding formula. Forces may budget to the total of SSA and principal formula grant even if that results in a budget increase of more than 3.2 per cent. A number of police authorities will be able to take advantage of that last measure. Similar proposals have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of Welsh police authorities.
In addition, we have included in the settlement the final £40 million instalment of the additional funding planned by the previous Administration for police officers in 1998–99. That money is being provided outside the capping limits. We are therefore honouring the earlier commitment by providing the finance. However, we are not attaching a condition that the money should be spent on extra officers: that is not for the Government to decide. Resources are being made available to enable police authorities to increase spending on delivering my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's key objectives for the police for 1998–99. The extra funds, which are allocated under additional rule 2A of the Police Grant Report, and the earlier instalments, which are allocated under additional rule 2, are being made available outside the capping limits of 3.2 per cent. When added to the capping increase, they will deliver an overall spending power increase of 3.7 per cent.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Can the Minister explain why the additional funds that were made available for the provision of more police officers were not translated nationally into the recruitment of more officers—although that did happen in Hampshire?

Mr. Michael: Yes, I can, very simply. The police said that they needed more money in order to do their job. The additional money was granted, theoretically for the provision of extra police officers; but it was not for the Government to decide how money allocated to police forces should be used. The 1994 Act made that the responsibility of the chief constables and the police authorities. The Government gave the money intending it to be used to provide more officers, but it was for the chief constables and the police authorities to undertake their duty of deciding what was the best value for money.
It is clear that judgments differed in different parts of the country. Some police forces felt that they should pass the money straight through into increased policing, and found


that the resources available to them allowed them to do so. For others, that would have meant cutting other areas of expenditure—or it would not have made sense for them to take on police officers without being certain that they could maintain the same level of employment in future years. The establishment factor has been changing; the previous Government changed it persistently for a number of years. The number of police officers is not a tap that can be turned on and off. It cannot be turned on in one year without there being implications for finance in future years.
The Government said that they would provide more money for police officers, but it was not their responsibility to give money for police officers. Their responsibility was to give money to the police so that they could do their job. We warned what would happen, and it did happen.
The settlement for the Metropolitan police will give them a revenue spending power of £1.775 billion. That represents an increase of 3.7 per cent. in spending power over 1997–98, taking the Metropolitan police to exactly the national average. The settlement is fair, but not excessive. It is in line with the increase for police authorities in the rest of England and Wales. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has acknowledged that it is fair in the context of public expenditure constraints. We have had to strike a balance between the Commissioner's assessment of need and the demands of council tax payers.
Included in the total settlement for the Met is a special payment in recognition of its capital city and national functions. The payment was fixed at £130 million in 1995, and until now has remained unchanged. For 1998–99, it will be increased by £21 million to £151 million. The increase followed a review of the special payment led by the Home Office, assisted by the Metropolitan police. We wanted to establish a firm foundation for the calculation of the figure. That review was the first serious attempt to cost the Met' s capital city and national functions.
The report provides a degree of transparency about the additional payment that was not previously available. I know that police authorities have welcomed its publication, although some outside London have voiced concerns about the level of the payment. We consider that the report is an open and honest attempt to study and identify the additional costs that the Metropolitan police must bear in relation to their national and capital city functions, which are exceptional.
In general, people agree that there is that additional capital city element, although I think we all accept that there is no simple way of identifying it. We have done the best we can, working with the Commissioner and others, to establish rationally what the figure should be. Now that the new level of payment has been established, we shall consider whether it needs further uplifting against the background of future police funding settlements. It establishes a rational basis for looking at the needs of the Metropolitan police.
As part of the settlement for the Metropolitan police, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to prepare a comprehensive value-for-money strategy that will draw together the current initiatives and look forward over the next five years. The overall national increase of 3.7 per cent. does not include an additional £30 million that we have transferred from central funding to local police funding for 1998–99, to allow authorities to pay the levy to

the new service authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. That sum also includes a contribution to the NCIS and national crime squad service authorities.
Every police authority will get its share of the £30 million. We have excluded that sum from our calculations, because, although it is a cash increase, it does not represent an increase in spending power as forces will need it to pay their levy. That levy was proposed by the previous Government and we supported it. We felt that it was right that those national functions, the finance for them and the representation on the service authorities should be routed back into local police forces and local authorities. That principle, which was established during debates and by agreement between both sides for incorporation in earlier legislation, is respected in the way that we have described the increased finance for this year.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities on the levies. In the light of the consultation process, he decided to direct the service authorities to issue levies that were lower than those that were originally proposed. The APA has described that as a sensible outcome of tripartite consultation.
Since 1995, allocations to individual authorities under the main settlement have been made according to a needs-based funding formula. The basis for calculating the money is the amount that each police force needs to do the job. In the short period between taking up office and announcing provisional grant allocations for 1998–99, we have not had time to consider whether there is any need for significant changes to the formula. However, in the light of consultation with the police service, we are making two minor changes. First, in recognition of the continuing increase in police pension costs, we are increasing the proportion of grant and standard spending assessment that is distributed under the pensions component of the funding formula from 12.9 per cent. to 13.2 per cent.
Secondly, we have reduced the amount of funding that is based on police force establishments. When the formula was introduced in 1995, 50 per cent. of funding was allocated on the basis of forces' past establishment levels. The number of police officers who were employed during the previous year had an impact on determining the finances for the coming financial year. The proportion has been progressively reduced over the past three years to 30 per cent. For 1998–99, we have reduced it again by 10 percentage points to 20 per cent. It is important to continue to move away from a historical means of funding and closer to a needs-based approach. The force establishment figures are increasingly out of date, because original figures rather than those for the previous year are used. Confidence in the formula continues to grow.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to be allowed to intervene before the Minister leaves this part of the speech. I do not seek to make a partisan point, because we both know the difficult problems that are associated with the increasing pension contribution. The Minister will know that the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had discussions with the police about that matter. I assume that the Minister and the present Home Secretary are also having discussions.


The problem must be addressed soon, because it is already of significant proportions. Could the Minister say a little about his thinking on the issue and tell us when we might expect some proposals for discussion and consultation?

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he raised the issue. He is right, and I raised the issue several times in rather the same manner when we were in opposition and the matter was being debated. We hope to be able to report shortly our views on the pensions element. The right hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that there is no magic wand that can be applied to the problem. For example, a fully funded scheme would require about £20 billion. I think that that figure has been mentioned. That is not the sort of money that grows on rose bushes, but we shall introduce proposals in relation to both the police service and the fire service, where similar problems exist. What we have done this year is to increase the proportion of grant and SSA that is distributed under the pensions component, so that the greater burden in the coming financial year compared with this financial year is reflected at least realistically in the figures.
Out of interest, I found out what the percentage increase would he if we netted out the additional cost of pensions. If we took out the extra money for the extra burden of pensions, the overall increase of 3.7 per cent. in the finance available for forces would go down to 3.5 per cent. We have been realistic; it is still a realistic settlement and realistic increase. We shall debate the matter again in the near future, because we need to establish a way forward for the long term, although, as I say, I would not like to promise that a magic wand can be waved and immediately remove the problem.
Returning to the formula as a whole, I believe that, with the reduction of that historic element—the amount of funding that is based on police force establishments—there is increasing confidence in the needs-based formula. The Association of Police Authorities has welcomed both the measures to change the funding formula.
We are making two further changes from last year. We are abolishing two of the additional rules that were introduced by the previous Government: 1 and 3. Both those rules, which sought to guarantee minimum increases in funding and spending for all authorities, served simply to distort or to override the application of the formula.
We understand the reason for the rules: to smooth the impact of changes where they mean that authorities are losers rather than gainers, and any change in a system is bound to produce losers and gainers. The problem is that the rules distorted expectations.
For example, one police authority that came to see me, which had received additional money under the formula to try to help it over the impact of last year's settlement, said that it expected that the assistance would continue year on year, rather than being a one-off to smooth things over. It is clear from what the previous Home Secretary said that the assistance was not to be given year on year, but was a one-off. Police authorities have been confused, so it is important that we have a simple system that everyone understands.
The APA has welcomed the measures, although one or two authorities have suggested that additional rule 1 funding should be phased out over more than one year.

However, against the background of a needs-based formula, it is difficult to justify the continuation of the special funding that the rule provided. We shall therefore remove it completely in 1998–99.
Applying the formula without those additional rules inevitably means that, as well as winners, there will be some losers. A formula that provides winners and losers will never enjoy universal acclaim. It is funny how the comments on the formula come largely from the losers, but that is only natural. It is important that the formula is intrinsically sound, and applied as far as possible without distortion.
Many chief constables and police authorities have said to me that, more than anything else, they want to know where they stand, not just for one year, but over successive years, so that they can predict where they will have difficulties and plan for them. We are trying to assist by giving them a predictable future. We believe that the system is essentially sound, but we shall continue to review and refine it in consultation with police authorities and ACPO.
The effect of the formula and capping principles to be applied by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister unfortunately means that two police authorities—Surrey and Lincolnshire—will be disappointed by the settlement. To be blunt, they are disappointed by it, and have said so.
The chief constables of those forces came to see me with representatives from the police authorities to express their concerns over the Government's funding proposals for 1998–99. I listened to them carefully, but my view remains that the special funding that they were given in 1997–98 cannot continue.
Tough choices are sometimes necessary for the greater good. The Government stand by their tough decisions in respect of Lincolnshire and Surrey. In doing so, I fully acknowledge that both forces are efficient and effective organisations. This is not a question of penalising inefficient forces. It is simply about allowing the formula and the capping limits to apply without the intervention of additional rules to distort the needs-based system.
Another issue that has been raised in several quarters is that of sparsity, which affects forces that have to police rural areas where distance makes their problems slightly different from those of metropolitan areas. They complained that the formula does not recognise the costs involved in policing areas of rural sparsity.
The previous Government introduced a sparsity element into the formula without objective evidence to justify it. We have left it in place for 1998–99, but we want to ensure that the pressures of policing rural areas receive fair consideration. Equally, I want to be sure that the formula takes account of the cost implications of policing densely populated urban areas. I am therefore commissioning independent research into the costs of policing areas of rural sparsity and urban density, in the hope that it will give us an objective method of judging the way forward on this argument which, as hon. Members will know, has arisen annually. We need to put it on a factual basis, and I hope that the research will assist us in doing that.
I shall refer briefly to capital expenditure for the police. We will be supporting £179 million of capital expenditure next year. We have inherited a difficult situation from the previous Government on police capital provision, a matter that we have debated over the past two years. Funding


has in fact been cut over the previous three years. However, all funding for the major police building programme is being maintained for next year as ACPO and the authorities wanted. The majority of forces will benefit from that funding.
Maintaining funding for the major building programme has meant a reduction of 4 per cent. across the board in allocations for minor capital works. That is a much smaller reduction than in the two previous years, when cuts of 17 per cent. were imposed. Spending on minor works, vehicles and equipment needs to be efficient and provide value for money.
The private finance initiative offers forces an opportunity to extend their capital needs and remove investment backlog. We have removed the barriers to successful PFI projects. New arrangements introduced by the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions at the end of last year will help police authorities and the private sector to develop projects more quickly and with greater certainty.
Revenue support in the form of PFI credits will be available to forces that sign PFI contracts, where the commercial viability of the project has been signed off by the new Treasury task force. We expect around four more police PFI contracts to be completed next year.
In conclusion, this is a very fair settlement for the police in a very tight spending round. The additional resources, coupled with our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill to tackle other issues in the criminal justice system—they include nipping things in the bud with regard to young offenders, speeding up the youth courts, dealing with anti-social behaviour and driving forward a partnership approach to cutting crime—will all help the police in the fight against crime and disorder. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. John Greenway: At best, this police grant settlement represents a standstill for the police service in England and Wales; at worst, it will mean budget cuts for several police authorities, leading to fewer police on our streets.
Year after year, Labour criticised the Tories for not spending enough on the police service, yet what do we find now? In his press statement on Monday, the Home Secretary admitted with refreshing honesty:
The police are the only local authority service to have had an increase greater than inflation in each of the last 4 years.
What an admission—it must be the first time a Minister has tried to excuse not giving enough money by suggesting that the Tories gave too much. It is hardly the background against which Labour should complain of a poor inheritance.
Three years ago, when Labour voted against the grant settlement, the current Home Secretary gave four reasons. First, he claimed that manifesto promises on police numbers had not been kept. Secondly, he said that some police forces would have to cut their numbers. Thirdly, he said that the funding formula was not sufficiently objective and that the apportionment of grant had been arbitrarily fiddled. Fourthly, he said that the grant settlement lacked the necessary flexibility to deal with public crises arising from national political matters that placed a strain on local police budgets—the House will recall, for example, the animal welfare demonstrations at Shoreham at the time.
How does new Labour's first police grant settlement match up to those complaints? In the manifesto commitments, we have drawn a blank. The Minister himself said that there would be no rash promises and, indeed, in new Labour's manifesto there were no commitments—nothing about police numbers and nothing about extra resources, just pious waffle about strong support for front-line services.
I shall now deal with the charge that police forces would have to reduce numbers. There were more constables under the Tories and it looks certain that there will be fewer police officers as a direct result of this settlement. That view is shared by a number of police forces.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I know the point the Minister is going to make. We listened carefully to what he said, so I hope that he will listen to what we say. I shall deal with the point that I know he has in mind.
Let us take the case of Lincolnshire constabulary, for example—I see that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) is in her place. The loss of grant to Lincolnshire is £2.5 million. The Lincolnshire police authority says that reductions in the number of police officers are inevitable, despite the fact that council tax payers are facing a 14 per cent. increase in their police council tax precept.
In Surrey, the grant has been cut by £7.5 million. A 28 per cent. increase in police council tax precept will not prevent a £4.3 million cut in budget, resulting in 20 to 30 fewer officers than were originally planned. Humberside police authority faces a budget cut of £2.5 million. Thames Valley faces a £6.3 million cut. Dorset faces a deficit of £1.5 million, despite a 12 per cent. hike in council tax. Cheshire must find £1.3 million in savings. It is inevitable that such reductions in spending will mean the employment of fewer police officers in many parts of the country. Is that what the Minister really intends?

Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: In a moment.
In Wales, two of the four police authoritiesDyfed-Powys and Gwent—have expressed grave disappointment and concern at the implication of the settlement. In today's Western Mail, the acting chief constable of Gwent, Richard Thomas, is quoted as saying:
the 18 officers we had hoped to appoint will not now be recruited … The money will be put back into the pot to take up the shortfall in the budget.
Perhaps the Minister can stop off to apologise on his way home this weekend to his constituency of Cardiff, South and Penarth.
The problems that a large number of police forces face have been worsened by the fact that the Home Secretary has done precisely what he criticised in the past—he has altered the police grant formula to benefit one police force at the expense of another.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: In a moment.
The Association of Police Authorities agrees, and is particularly critical, as the hon. Gentleman knows—although he glossed over it in his speech—of the decision to increase the Metropolitan police special payment by £21 million, which is an extra 16 per cent.
I know from personal experience the demands that are made on the Metropolitan police in such areas as public order and anti-terrorism. For example, a Metropolitan police study suggested that those responsibilities cost the mounted branch almost £10 million a year. However, that conclusion will not be viewed with much sympathy in North Yorkshire, where it was recently announced that the mounted branch will be closed down because of a lack of funds.
We must ask whether the Metropolitan police's so-called objective assessment was, in fact, objective and independent. If the case for giving more money to London is as strong as the Home Secretary believes, resources should arguably be provided by a special award for London and not by reducing the budget increase for police forces in the rest of the country. On closer examination, however, it appears that Londoners face a 26 per cent. increase in their police council tax precept to cover the £21 million. The residents of London, not the Government, will fund the extra payment. The claim that London alone needs special funding for capital or city-type policing, when other major cities face identical problems of a national nature, is debatable.
The Home Secretary made precisely such a point three years ago, when he said that the formula did not provide sufficient flexibility. When I intervened on him during that debate to ask what he would do about it, the reply that we received was a definition not a solution. Directing more resources to the Metropolitan police makes things worse, because other police forces have even less money with which to deal with unexpected problems.

Mr. Michael: I am ever so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He is rivalling the former right hon. Member for Conwy, Sir Wyn Roberts, who became known as the bardic steamroller for rolling on without taking a break. The hon. Gentleman should surely recognise and acknowledge that North Yorkshire police force will receive a 4 per cent. increase in spending power as a result of the settlement. Only one force will have a cut in its spending power, as I said. That is Surrey, with a cut of 1 per cent. The other authority to receive a difficult settlement is Lincolnshire, as I have acknowledged, with a settlement of 1.1 per cent. Most other forces receive a settlement at or above the national average of 3.7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman ought to stick to facts.

Mr. Greenway: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that all the figures that I have quoted are in letters to hon. Members, which I would quite willingly give to him or place in the Library. He is correct to say that North Yorkshire police will receive a 4 per cent. increase. In many respects, we welcome that. It is a marginally higher settlement, but it does not alter my argument that in North Yorkshire there will not be a mounted branch whereas it was argued that London must have a mounted branch and therefore must receive an extra £21 million.
What can we conclude from all this? Judging by what the Home Secretary said when he last spoke in the House on this matter, this police grant settlement fails to address any of the issues that he thought so important that he voted against the proposed grant three years ago. Should that come as any great surprise? I think not. All the evidence shows that increasing police service resources is not a priority for the Government. Not only was there no commitment to provide extra resources in Labour's election manifesto, but precious little has been said on the matter since the election.
In the 1995 police grant debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked the then shadow Home Secretary how much more money the Labour party thought the Conservative Government should spend on the police. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friend should wait until the Conservatives were in opposition, when they would hear the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) announce in his Budget details of Labour's spending plans. We are still waiting. We have had not one but two Budgets since the election. There have been two opportunities to tell us about how important resourcing the fight against crime is to the new Government, but there has not been a word about the police—not even a Home Office press release in the Budget pack made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office. Nothing. Not a word. Just silence. So much for Labour being tough on crime.

Mr. Hancock: To hear the hon. Gentleman speak one would imagine that, when in power, the Tories were very generous to the police. This settlement is virtually identical to the one that they proposed last year. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the number of police officers in England and Wales fell over the last four years of the Tory Government?

Mr. Greenway: I am coming to that, as the Minister knows, because we have had that argument before, although not during the full police grant debate.
What has the Minister, previously merely the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, had to say? In recent years he has made much of what he saw as the previous Government's failure to deliver an extra 1,000 officers, yet every independent assessment of the Conservative record bears out the claim that funding was increased in real terms—and we now have the Home Secretary's ringing endorsement of that fact in his own press release.
We also know that more police constables were recruited as a result of what the previous Government did. The Minister has referred to the Audit Commission report. I refer him to paragraph 50 of that report, which says:
most forces had increases in their funding in real terms between 1993/94 and 1996/97".
The report's statistical analysis shows that 32 police forces had real-terms increases and only six had reductions. One of those, by the way, was North Yorkshire. It is interesting that Durham, in which Sedgefield lies, had the biggest increase of all.
The Audit Commission report also confirmed, in paragraph 48:
the average time police constables spent in public increased by 4 per cent. between 1994/95 and 1996/97 … Coupled with the increased numbers in police constables, this means significantly more bobbies on the beat".


That is not what we say but what the Audit Commission report, which the Minister prayed in aid, said.
The Minister has already confirmed to me in a written answer that between April 1992 and March last year the number of constables increased by 2,322. He says that the number of police officers fell by 469, but it is well known throughout the police service that, by flattening the management structure and civilianising police posts, senior ranks throughout the police service were intentionally reduced. In the Metropolitan police alone, between March 1994 and March 1996 the number of senior officers of the rank of chief inspector and above fell by 255. It is in those ranks, not among police constables on the streets, that the number of police officers fell.
That pattern applies throughout the country. The settlement that we are being asked to approve today seems certain to maintain the trend of a flatter management style as police authorities look for budget savings and reassess their priorities while doing everything possible to maintain front-line services.
Indeed, the Home Secretary has encouraged that process by demanding greater efficiency. That is what the Minister said today. We agree with that. Perhaps he can tell us how many police posts he expects to be civilianised during the lifetime of this Parliament. He knows that, as a matter of necessity, many will be, and he must also know that that will mean fewer police officers. However, what matters to the public is how many constables there are on the streets.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the Minister of State has already conceded, Surrey is one of the counties that has been hit by a cut in police grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that people in Surrey will be concerned because, unlike many other counties, including Durham, they will not see a continuing increase in the number of constables on the beat because the Labour Government have broken many of the promises that they gave earlier and cut funding for counties such as Surrey?

Mr. Greenway: Certainly the people of Surrey will wonder why they are paying a 28 per cent. council tax increase so that more police officers can be available in the Metropolitan police district, while they get fewer.

Mr. Michael: In replying to his hon. Friend, will the hon. Member acknowledge that it is not the present settlement that affects the figure for Surrey, but the application of the needs-based formula, which the previous Government put in place?

Mr. Greenway: No, it is not.

Mr. Michael: Yes, it is.

Mr. Greenway: No, it is not. The Home Secretary has decided arbitrarily—as the Minister has told us today—to remove rule 1 and rule 3.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No. The Minister has asked me a question and I have given him the answer. He must know that that is what has happened. He himself said that that

was the cause of the reductions in Lincolnshire and in Surrey. Who made the decision? It was this Government—not the last Government. He must take responsibility for that decision.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I will not give way again. I have given the Minister an answer. He is putting forward a sterile argument. Rule 1 and rule 3 were introduced to ensure that every police authority got a fair share of the increased money. The fact is that those two rules have been removed, and that is the cause of the problems in Surrey and in Lincolnshire.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No. I must make progress. Many hon. Members want to speak in this short debate. There are many matters yet to be considered.
A key factor in the increase in the number of constables to which I referred was the initiative by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in 1995 to provide the resources to enable the police service to recruit up to 5,000 more officers over three years. Although that initiative was derided by the Minister and by Labour in opposition, we now find that the Government have provided the money for the third stage of the programme.
Let me be clear about this. The Opposition warmly welcome the Government's decision to provide the additional £40 million for the third slice of extra money. On that, at least, there is agreement, and it has been generally welcomed in the police service as well. I only wish that I could be more convinced of the Government's enthusiasm. Their attitude to this project is best summed up by what the Minister said a year ago. He said that the Government were
not providing the resources or putting in the money to meet the Prime Minister's promise."—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 462.]
That was just plain wrong. The assistant chief constable of Gwent clearly thinks that it was wrong, too. He had the money for the 18 officers he planned to recruit, but the Government—through this settlement—have taken it away.
Doubtless the Minister discovered how wrong he was when he examined the figures in preparation for this year's police grant. He found a specific grant of £60 million for extra officers which is replicated in this grant settlement document. Along with the £40 million extra to which I have referred, that means that the police benefit to the tune of £100 million this year as a direct consequence of the former Prime Minister's initiative. The importance of this to police budgets cannot be overstated; it is acknowledged by the fact that this £100 million is excluded from capping limits.
On the question of capping, the police element of the council tax is not sufficiently transparent. This settlement produces vast discrepancies across the country. How can it make sense for residents in Staffordshire to face a 32 per cent. rise in what they pay towards the police through the council tax when, in the neighbouring West Midlands area, residents are likely to see a 7 per cent. cut?


In Surrey, residents will pay 28 per cent. more, whereas in Kent there will be a 5 per cent. reduction. In Cumbria, there will be a rise of 24 per cent., yet in Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland there will be a reduction.
More to the point, research from the Library estimates that, of the £63 million increase in overall spending power for the Metropolitan police, £37 million will be funded by council tax payers; almost 60 per cent. of the extra money will be met by residents. What is undeniably perverse about this year's settlement is that, in some areas, the police element of the council tax will go down while the police will be forced to make cuts in their planned budgets. Those cuts inevitably mean that money supposedly for additional officers will be used to help maintain existing commitments. That is why the Minister has made no predictions regarding police numbers, and why I believe we shall never persuade him to do so.
As if all that is not bad enough, the Association of Police Authorities has confirmed that support for capital projects has been cut by 12.7 per cent., or £26 million. It is shameful that the Government have done that and how the Minister can possibly justify that cut in the face of his past statements beggars belief. The obvious lesson is that criticism is easy, but having the responsibility for taking hard decisions is much more difficult. The Minister should not be in the least surprised at being reminded of his more outspoken remarks when in opposition. Judged by what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends said in the past, this police grant settlement does not pass muster.
Judging by their past remarks about police services, we cannot doubt that Ministers are fully aware of what is required to sustain and improve the quality of the police service. What is in doubt is their commitment. There is precious little evidence that supporting the police service with extra money and not just fine words is a priority for new Labour. We in the House today and those in the country at large need to be clear that the problems for the police services and the increases in council tax bills that will flow from this settlement are the responsibility of the Government and no one else. New Labour's manifesto may have been short on specific promises, but their rhetoric and conduct in recent years has generated high expectations. From what they have said in the past, we know what those expectations are; sadly, they will not be fulfilled by this grant settlement.
Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Front Bench speeches have now taken 48 minutes of a 90-minute debate. I appeal to hon. Members to make brief speeches so that I can try to accommodate all those who are seeking to catch my eye.

Gillian Merron: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's clear commitment on behalf of the Government to tackle and prevent crime through good policing as well as through legislative measures. Those are the actions of a responsible Government.
I regret that I am the isolated voice of local concern in the House today as the only Lincolnshire Member of Parliament present. As we have heard, Lincolnshire is one of only two police authorities that are losing out—to the

tune of more than £2.5 million in 1998–99. In December, because of that, I made urgent arrangements to meet my hon. Friend the Minister and at our meeting I set out my concerns about cuts in Government funding, which we in Lincolnshire fear might cost the police force up to 80 officers—a number that we can ill afford to lose. It is understood that there are many heavy pressures on spending and lines need to be drawn, but I regret that the effect of where the Lincolnshire line is drawn is that council tax payers in my constituency will pay more, but receive less. That is most unwelcome.
We are in that worrying position because the previous Government established a formula that did not take accurate account of Lincolnshire' s sparsity of population or needs. For two years, they applied special rules—for political favour, I believe—which have now raised expectations. I would prefer that the previous Government had tackled the issue of a formula that treated Lincolnshire unfairly, but they did not, and we are now where we are.
The outcome of my meeting with the Minister was that he agreed to meet the Lincolnshire police authority and to re-examine the funding formula—assurances I was pleased to secure. The Lincolnshire police authority made an excellent case and alerted the Minister to the value for money offered by the Lincolnshire police authority. The cost of policing in Lincolnshire is 28p per person per day, compared with a national average of 36p. Despite having one police officer for every 500 people, when the national average is one to 400, the apparent implication of the grant formula is that we have too many police officers.
I would not accept that, and nor would the many people and organisations who have made heartfelt representations to me, including the Lincolnshire Tenants Forum, which represents tenants groups across Lincolnshire and works closely with the police in an effort to combat crime and anti-social behaviour. In addition, the chamber of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Lincoln co-operative society and many other organisations have made concerned representations to me.
Like many other hon. Members, I receive representations from constituents who, as groups of neighbours, come to me as their Member of Parliament to express their concern about local policing. I shall briefly quote a letter I sent to my local police superintendent, who provides an excellent service. The letter was prompted by a group of people, at their wits' end, who came to me, and it illustrates the concerns felt in Lincoln. I wrote that I had been approached by four households
who are greatly concerned about the behaviour of a family who lives close to them … The group that came to see me believe the parents … are involved in drug-dealing and allege that they use the empty house to the left of their residence as a repository for stolen goods … the two elder children of the family are apparently left to run wild about the estate, having both been expelled from school. They and their younger siblings regularly climb out of the bedroom windows to roam the streets in the early hours of the morning. All those who came to see me spoke of being terrorised. The children damage their homes and property, and those of other neighbours, on a regular basis. They also shout abuse at residents"—
and spit at an elderly man who is harassed in the street.
The trouble has apparently gone on for seven years.
We cannot allow that to continue and we must tackle such situations. I am worried that the impact of the settlement on the Lincolnshire police may curtail their ability to do so.
This week is national facial injuries week, as hon. Members may be aware. On Monday, I joined a specialist consultant and a senior police officer at a Lincoln school to help raise awareness of the dangers of the abuse of alcohol and the link to dangerous driving and violent attacks. The police officer spelled out his own experience and, in so doing, may have prevented some of those young people from suffering severe facial and emotional damage or even death. We want our police officers to do that sort of work and do not want funding to be cut and our service to become simply a law-enforcement body. The sort of preventative work and liaison in which I engaged on Monday is what a modem and efficient community police force is all about. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.
My hon. Friend referred to the Audit Commission report, in which we in Lincolnshire can read that we have a below average number of police officers available for ordinary duty; a below-average proportion of uniformed constables' time spent in public; and a below average expenditure on policing per head of population. Yet I, like the Minister, commend Lincolnshire police for their efficiency and effectiveness. I wish to put on record my constituents' gratitude for the police's dedication and the hard work carried out, not only by uniformed members of the Lincolnshire police force, but by those who are not in uniform. All of them frequently extend themselves well beyond the call of duty.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his agreement to my request for a review of the grant formula, and we have heard about some of the changes. However, I have a plea to make to him. The urgency and worry for Lincolnshire police authority and my constituents in Lincoln is that our level of policing cannot continue and that we shall suffer, lose confidence and no longer be properly policed. I wish to endorse the forcible arguments that have been advanced for transitional support and a special capital grant, which I regret have not found favour with my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: As time is limited, I shall be brief. I shall not apologise for considering police funding nationally from a Hampshire perspective. There, I believe that it can be said that the prevailing view of the 1998–99 settlement is summed up in the words "Appearances can deceive". I do not believe that that view is confined to Hampshire alone. On the surface, the settlement does not seem unreasonable: it allows an increase in spending of 3.8 per cent. or £6.9 million, and the provisional capping criteria allow maximum spending of £187 million. Together with a few bits and pieces, that brings the total spending to £190.3 million. But appearances can deceive.
Hampshire—along perhaps with other police authorities—is set to suffer from a contradiction in the settlement. In the settlement, the Government recognise the increasing needs of the police force. They consequently and rightly express that recognition in the form of an increase in grant—I support and applaud the Government for that. However, what is highly questionable is that, in the case of Hampshire and, I dare say, elsewhere, the Government have not allowed and are not allowing a similar increase in police spending. That absurd situation has been created by the provisional capping criteria. The simple truth is that those criteria contradict the increase in the grant.
The point has been put simply to me by members of the police authority: it is perverse to a degree. By budgeting at the capping level, the council tax for the Hampshire police authority will have to be reduced by about 2.8 to 3 per cent. I acknowledge that that is of benefit to council tax payers in the short term, and I welcome the increase in grant, but the police authority sees the absurdity of the situation and is already making that point to the Minister and his officials. Hampshire police authority is arguing that the capping limit should be set at a level that would at least maintain the current level of the police element of the council tax.
We are arguing—I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this—that there should, at the very least, be a cash freeze in the police element of the council tax in Hampshire. It would be acceptable politically; on the whole, people regard money spent on law and order as money well spent and, in the case of Hampshire, next year it would yield an additional amount of almost £1 million. At the margin, that would make a significant difference, given the need to direct funds from the revenue account to finance unavoidable capital commitments.
That matter leads me naturally to my second and final point, which is more specific to Hampshire. I hope that the Government will take note of it. I make the point not only because of its obvious constituency interest, but because it affects the whole of the county of Hampshire. As the Minister will know, the funding situation in Hampshire has been compounded by the discovery of a serious asbestos problem in Basingstoke police station. The problem will require a total rebuild; it was unforeseen; and resolving it will cost about £3.2 million. It will place an enormous burden on the funding of Hampshire police authority.
The police authority is already in touch with the Minister's officials and is pleading for borrowing approval to help to pay for the work. I take this opportunity to endorse that plea. I hope that the Government will respond positively. The unforeseen development is a further reason why Hampshire authority is requesting a relaxation in the capping limit.

Mr. Hancock: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the subject of Hampshire, I am sure that he would like to join me in congratulating the police authority in Hampshire. During the last four years of the Tory Government, when national figures were going down, the Liberal Democrat-led police authority was able to increase police numbers by 225 policemen and 311 civilians—a major breakthrough in policing. What the Government were talking about nationally, we achieved on the ground in Hampshire, but with no help from the Government.

Mr. Hunter: I agree with half of what the hon. Gentleman said. I acknowledge that, during the time that he presided over Hampshire county council, there was a substantial increase in the establishment of the county constabulary. I have frequently congratulated him on presiding over that, and I do so again.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman because he consistently refuses to acknowledge that, not just when he looked after the county council, but throughout the 18 years of Conservative government, Hampshire benefited from a 115.9 per cent. real-terms increase in funding from central Government. Many of the great


achievements made by the police authorities of Hampshire were achieved on the back of that increased central Government funding. That does not detract from the fact that I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he achieved in that respect while he was leader of the county council, and I would not wish to give that impression.
I plead with the Minister seriously to take on board the two different needs of the Hampshire police authority. First, I make a plea for a raising of the provisional capping limit that has been announced. Secondly, I make a plea that the borrowing approval that the police authority is seeking to help fund the additional, unforeseen expenditure that will be needed owing to the discovery of asbestos at Basingstoke police station will receive a positive response. There is much else that I could say, but I rest my case on a final plea to the Minister to take those points seriously.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and time is limited.
I wanted to say something about my own experience of the subject. For four years before entering the House, I had the honour of being the chairman of the Humberside police authority. I therefore sat through many anxious debates as settlements were made. It strikes me that there is good and bad in all police settlements; perhaps whether one shows joy or indignation depends on which side of the Speaker's Chair one is sitting.
There is merit in the settlement announced today and I, for one, certainly welcome it. I have always found the subject of funding and police officers interesting. From my experience, I am not necessarily sure that, if my police authority received extra funding, that money would always be best spent simply on extra police officers. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the point rather well when he said that flattening structures and civilianisation were also involved. It is odd when political parties chase after X hundred or X thousand extra police officers; what we want are effective and efficient police services and police authorities. We might debate whether that means more police officers, more civilianisation, more equipment or better training, but really it involves a mixture of all of them. I welcome the settlement, in as much as it will allow police authorities to make the decision for themselves.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the subject of pensions is perhaps the most significant issue facing police authorities. I remember attending a seminar on the future of police funding last year, or the year before, where it was said that, if nothing changed—my hon. Friend the Minister has already changed something this year—by the year 2020, police authorities would be spending more than half their budget on police pensions, not policing. The matter should be dealt with quickly. I welcomed the Minister's comment that he is working keenly on it and we can expect an announcement soon. We must have a clear way forward.
I was the chairman of the police authority when the previous Government moved from what was basically establishment-based funding to the formula funding, and I was a strong supporter of that. I applauded the previous

Home Secretary for doing it. Although he was no political friend of mine, he was right to do it. We are right to continue that process. It was always going to be difficult because, inevitably, it would move resources around.
I had no great objection to the additional rules that were introduced last year, because they gave a degree of protection. It must be borne in mind, however, that the additional rules did not put any extra money in; they simply redistributed the entire cake in a slightly different way. The Surreys and the Lincolnshires can claim to be badly treated because they are not getting transitional relief or additional rules this year, but it must be accepted that there are police authorities that the formula has identified as having less money than they should have had. That is what additional rule 1 and 3 did last year.
The formula provides that certain police authorities should get a bigger slice of the cake—we can argue about the size of the cake—and extra rules were put in to reduce that, so that there was some relief for the losing authorities. I had no objection to the previous Government doing that for one year, because it was a big move in one go, but it must be recognised that, where the formula has identified need, resources should follow.
Let me add a personal plea on the formula. I hope that the Minister will address the area cost adjustment, which, in police terms, is extremely unfair. There are national wage agreements for police services and civilian staff, and I see little basis for an area cost adjustment to move resources to just one part of the country.
There is a romantic myth that we should all like to become a reality—more police officers on the street, walking down the street endlessly and reassuring us, which is part of the police's business. The Police Foundation conducted research that showed that a police officer on the beat would come across a crime only once every six years, or only four or five times in his entire career. If that is the case, questions must be asked about the best use of police officers. That is why money must be spent in a targeted way.
The impact of crime on the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) spoke about in the context of her constituency, is a matter of community safety. That was identified by Morgan in his report several years ago. It is a matter not just for the police and the police authority, but for the wider community—the local authority, private business, the voluntary sector. The entire community must work together to ensure that there is less crime and less fear of crime on the streets. I know that we are not here to discuss the Crime and Disorder Bill, but I welcome the fact that the Government want to move in that direction.
The police grant settlement is only one tiny dot on the entire picture of law and order in Britain. The settlement is a step in the right direction, and I am happy to commend it to the House.

Mr. Richard Allan: As I rise to offer the Liberal Democrat response to the report, I am once again confronted by the strange role reversal of the Labour party in government and the Conservatives in opposition.
On these Benches, we are thinking of equipping ourselves with simultaneous translation equipment in the manner of the European Parliament, so that, when we hear


the Minister telling us that this is a perfectly adequate settlement, that is translated as, "I was only pretending when I called for more resources in opposition"; and when the Conservative spokesman attacks the settlement as inadequate, that is faithfully rendered as, "We were only pretending when we spent years arguing that similar settlements were perfectly good."
I welcome any contribution to the debate that uses the popular phrase "the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government," which can be read as "an excuse for absolutely anything, which we will use just as long as we can get away with it."
The first thing that we must be clear about with regard to this year's settlement is who will pay for the 3.7 per cent. increase that the police forces are getting. The Government have said that they expect the average increase in police authority precepts to be greater than the rate of inflation. The Minister's estimate of £5 on the precept for a band D property actually represents an 8.7 per cent. increase.
It is unfortunate that, once again, the local council tax payer is hit in order to maintain the fiction that taxes are not being increased, when what is really meant is that income tax is not being increased.
The Minister found this such a shameful funding mechanism that, in last year's debate, he was not sure whether to call it
institutional theft or another Tory tax rise"—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 460.]
My translator tells me that that should now read "a sensible and necessary measure to keep the Government's pledges on tax, made necessary by 18 years of Tory rule".
With an increase in the police precept above the rate of inflation, the public might reasonably believe that they would see an increase in the number of police officers in their areas, but that is unlikely if last year's example is anything to go by. The 3.7 per cent. budget increase delivered by the Tories last year led to fewer police officers. There has been a fall of 300 officers from the March 1997 figure of 125,051 to the September 1997 figure of 124,751.
Last year, the Minister enjoyed attacking the Conservative Government for their "con trick" over police numbers. His party was careful not to make a commitment of its own on police numbers, but the clear implication of the Labour argument was that falling police numbers were a problem. In new Labour-speak, that may be translated as "size does not matter".

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in relation to the Greater Manchester police? Year after year through those 18 years of Tory misrule, the chief police officer wanted an extra 120 officers, who were denied to him by the Home Office. We now find that there has been a further fall in the number of police officers since the Labour Government came to power. Does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts of councils such as Stockport to improve crime prevention measures and to work with the police to fund special constables are undermined by such outcomes, and that what matters are the outcomes, not the inputs of cash?

Mr. Allan: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which adds local colour by describing the problems that people are facing on the ground.
The police establishment, as the Minister pointed out, is now a matter for the police forces themselves, since the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which the Minister was then happy to criticise. He told us that the change to locally decided establishments was the result of constant scrutiny by his vigilant Opposition, and that the Conservatives had introduced it as a smokescreen to cover up cuts in police numbers.
I hope that the Minister will be able to rise above the low motives of the previous Government and not simply dismiss concerns about police numbers as someone's else's problem. We have enough "blame someone else" disease in agriculture, without bringing it into the Home Office as well.
It is common sense that the principal factor in deciding the police establishment is the level of funding, and that remains the Government's problem.
Police effectiveness is not just a function of resources. The recent Audit Commission report is a timely reminder that effectiveness is about management and how we use those resources. I shall single out from the report the performance of my local force, the South Yorkshire constabulary, which achieved very good results in spite of a relatively low level of funding for a metropolitan force.
My experience from talking to the South Yorkshire force and from colleagues in other areas is that important changes are taking place and are bringing improvements. Local policing plans are helping to set clear targets and priorities. The devolution of responsibility to divisions is helping. Investments in community policing are reinforcing our tradition of policing by consent—a tradition that may have suffered in the past from the perception that the police were remote agents who arrived by car only at a time of crisis.
The Liberal Democrats support those moves. We want to see a police force firmly based in our local communities and working with other agencies. We believe that the best way to help potential victims is to prevent crime in the first place.
In accepting the broad outcome of this year's settlement, we want to raise with the Minister certain points that give us concern about future settlements. The first is the issue of police pensions, which the Minister mentioned. The time bomb has been ticking away for some time. We look forward to a Government announcement on when they will issue a consultation paper setting out the possible reforms.
The second key concern is the cap on the Home Office budget in general—the set of handcuffs that the Government have placed on themselves by sticking to the Tory spending plans.
The criminal justice system, by its nature, is demand-led, and there is growth in particular areas, such as prison populations. If we are able to increase police effectiveness, we can expect to see that demand grow further still: more prisoners will come on stream as more criminals are caught by an increasingly effective police force. The Home Secretary has said that he can deal with that increase only by moving resources within the capped budgets. We seek the Minister's reassurance that police budgets will not be damaged by the demand for extra spending elsewhere.
Thirdly, we hope that the Minister will address capital funding. While it is not covered specifically by the report, the 12.7 per cent. cut—down from


£205 million to £179 million next year—will place further pressure on police budgets. The cost of supporting older plant will be higher, and investment priorities may divert funds from front-line resources.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will take on board the new demands that the police will face. There is a welcome trend towards community policing, and a series of measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will require the police to put in place and enforce orders. Speeding up the youth justice system will mean the devotion of considerable police resources to joint working with the courts and other services. We hope that that fresh officer time will be funded through police settlements, and the fall in police numbers is extremely worrying in that context.
The Liberal Democrats do not seek to obstruct the settlement today, but I hope that the Minister will take our concerns on board and enter a constructive dialogue that leads to greater support for our first-class police forces, which provide a public service of which we can rightly be proud.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall do my best to present the main points of my speech in the short time available—as usual, the speech that one does not deliver is the best.
On 2 November, the Minister wrote to all north Wales Members of Parliament, saying that money was tight and that the Government had inherited a very difficult and challenging situation. I shall give him some free legal advice: if one inherits a burdensome bequest, one can always relinquish it. The Minister could start by re-examining spending limits. I agree that Government money is tight—it always will be. I know that the Minister will fight his corner with the Treasury—the people who control much more of Government than is apparent at first glance.
The settlement offered to the North Wales police is disappointing. The North Wales force is extremely efficient and well run, but the money that it has been offered is clearly insufficient. The Home Office expenditure forecasting group reported an unavoidable need for growth of about 3.9 per cent. plus inflation. Therefore, there is a considerable funding gap between what is needed and what has been offered—in short, there is an unavoidable shortfall of £1.7 million or 2.5 per cent. That will mean further cuts, and more internal efficiency savings.
The North Wales police force is very well managed. A major restructuring exercise undertaken in recent years found that some senior ranks were not necessary, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said. The "flattening out" process has gone well in north Wales, and has produced substantial savings in many areas.
I urge the Minister to re-examine the settlement for the north Wales force. The cuts cannot go on for ever. Rural police stations have been told that officers may travel only 15 miles in their motor vehicles. That absolutely incredible position is one result of the yearly squeeze on resources.
The current approach must change. All hon. Members are concerned about policing: it is a core service. Some people claim that crime is not a major issue in rural areas, but unfortunately that situation is changing. Therefore, the sparsity and rurality elements of the settlement must be re-examined. The day population of north Wales is hugely inflated during the summer months, and perhaps the settlement does not sufficiently recognise that fact.
I do not want to be too grudging: I welcome the Minister's opening remarks and his reference to research into the sparsity issue and policing in our inner cities. I hope that that research will bring forth some urgent changes, as the annual squeeze on police authorities is making life well nigh impossible. As a result of the review, I hope that we can look forward to a change in the rules that govern the calculation of the formula. It is vital to maintain rural services. The police in rural and inner-city areas must be able to perform their duties adequately.
I welcome the review, and 1 hope that the Minister will press it forward, so that we may be sure of adequate policing throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael: I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated in the debate on packing a great deal into a short space of time, and on raising many issues. It is impossible to answer all the questions, but I shall reply to specific points—particularly regarding local issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) was the first to make representations to me—so it was a first for us both. She pressed the case for Lincolnshire vigorously. The Lincolnshire force is caught by the inevitable consequences of the needs-based formula introduced by the previous Government, which, to be fair, commands general support among police and police authorities across the country.
The former Home Secretary made the mistake of awarding a grant that appeared to provide additional money over a period of years, but was intended to ease the situation for only a single year. As I said initially, we shall curtail the use of the special rules in order to remove that distortion. It is better to know exactly where one stands—even if that creates difficulties—so that one can predict future problems.
My hon. Friend referred to a nightmare family who have harassed a particular community for seven years. That is precisely why we are introducing the antisocial behaviour order in the Crime and Disorder Bill. One can imagine the amount of time and effort that police, local authorities, local councillors, Members of Parliament, and perhaps other agencies have devoted to that problem in the past seven years. The new order will give authorities the power to prevent a repetition of that sort of behaviour. That is important.
One may control the water level in a bath by turning off the tap as well as by pulling the plug—I hope hon. Members can follow my analogy. We must provide police with the resources and the tools to do the job in terms of legislation, powers to the courts and so on.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) acknowledged that we have increased the settlement to the Hampshire force by 3.8 per cent. I appreciate the


fact that specific events, such as finding asbestos in a police station, can cause unexpected problems—as do certain revenue pressures, such as a major incident, a new road or pursuing serious inquiries.
There is no way in which we can provide resources to deal with such problems without allowing for incredible variations in the settlement—not least because we would have to predict what might occur. We shall examine the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I cannot make any promises about what assistance we might provide. It is worth mentioning that we shall support four capital building projects in Hampshire in 1998–99.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, offered to provide a translation service. I was tempted to respond by saying that his comments should be translated as, "I was not in power then and I am not in power now, so don't take anything I say seriously." However, I do take the hon. Gentleman seriously, and he made some important points.
The hon. Gentleman described the criminal justice system as demand-led. One problem is that we have allowed the criminal justice system to be completely demand-led. It is a fact that incidents occur when they occur, and people commit crimes when they commit crimes.
However, we can do something about crime levels—for example, we can nip problems in the bud with young offenders. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about that—as we discovered in a debate a few months ago. We are not only providing the police with the resources that enable them to do their job properly, but are creating an environment in which, with other partners, they can tackle crime and the causes of crime. We have introduced measures that enable the police to do their job much more efficiently.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) intervened briefly. It is worth pointing out that, up to now, any cuts have been the result of the previous Government's financial settlements. This year, we are giving the Greater Manchester police an increase of 3.8 per cent., slightly above the national average.
To the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) I would say that we would all like more, but 3.8 per cent. is the increase in spending power that we are giving the North Wales police. I visited the force recently, and a number of partnership developments are bearing fruit, such as the prevention of crime in Rhyl, or the work done with the local authority in Colwyn Bay and Llandudno. They are positive measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) brought to bear his insight as an experienced chair of a police authority. He was right in what he said about the efficient use of money. That, rather than the distortion offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), was the point of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's comments in announcing the settlement. It is a general settlement, but we also need to consider the efficiency with which the police use the resources available to them. I urge the hon. Gentleman to re-read my right hon. Friend's press release.
Last year, for the 1997–98 financial year, there was a settlement of 3.7 per cent. This year, there is a settlement of 3.7 per cent. The difference is that last year's settlement was based on an inflation rate of 3.1 per cent., but this year's is based on an inflation rate of 2.7 per cent. That is the difference, and that shows the greater generosity of this Government compared with that of the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Ryedale said that the settlement will mean that council tax payers in London will have to pay more than in previous years. That is fair, given that the Government will still meet between 80 and 85 per cent. of police expenditure in the capital. The percentage of police spending raised from council tax in the Metropolitan Police district is estimated to be 12.9 per cent. in 1998–99. That is lower than the English average of 14.5 per cent., and a lot lower than that for any other force in the south-east of England.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should compare like with like, looking at fairness and not just where the increase applies. If he does so, he will see that the people of the Metropolitan Police area have received a fair settlement.
The hon. Gentleman said that criticism is easy, although he managed to make it sound difficult. We need only compare the previous Government's promise in 1992 to increase police numbers by 1,000—their choice, not ours—and their promise later to increase them by another 2,000, a total of 3,000, with their delivery of a cut of 469. The hon. Gentleman may say, by their deeds shall we know them, but we certainly know the Conservatives by their failure to deliver on their promises during the many years that they had the opportunity to deliver.
The Conservatives had the opportunity to put their money where their mouth was, and they failed. They failed to deliver their promises. They failed to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. They failed the British police and the British people. In contrast, this Government have made a good settlement, at a time of considerable financial restraint.
We are also taking other steps to work in partnership with the police, and to enable the police to work in partnership with local authorities and the community to deliver a high standard of policing and to improve it, so that we can see the problems of crime, which have bedevilled our communities for far too long, tackled efficiently by a partnership between Government and the police.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99 (HC 492), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DEFENCE

That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Janet Anderson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Janet Anderson.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (Sittings)),

That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet on Monday 2nd March at half past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to take questions for oral answer pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 and to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 99.—[Janet Anderson.]

Orders of the Day — Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 3

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROTEST MEETINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

'.—(1) Where notice has been given under section 6 in relation to a public procession, a person proposing to organise a related protest meeting shall give notice of that proposal in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held.

(2) Notice under this section shall be given—

(a) not later than 14 days before the date on which the meeting is to be held; or
(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice.

(3) Notice under this section shall—

(a) be given in writing in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
(b) be signed by the person giving the notice.

(4) The form prescribed under subsection (3)(a) shall require a person giving notice under this section to specify—

(a) the date and time when the meeting is to be held;
(b) the place at which it is to be held;
(c) the number of persons likely to take part in it;
(d) the arrangements for its control being made by the person proposing to organise it;
(e) the name and address of that person;
(f) where the notice is given as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the reason why it was not reasonably practicable to give notice in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection; and
(g) such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function in relation to the meeting.

(5) The Chief Constable shall ensure that a copy of a notice given under this section is immediately sent to the Commission.

(6) A person who organises or takes part in a protest meeting—

(a) in respect of which the requirements of this section as to notice have not been satisfied; or
(b) which is held on a date or at a time or place which differs from the date, time or place specified in relation to it in the notice given under this section,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) it is a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know of, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements of this section or (as the case may be) the difference of date, time or place.

(8) To the extent that an alleged offence under subsection (6) turns on a difference of date, time or place it is a defence for the accused to prove that the difference arose from—

(a) circumstances beyond his control;
(b) something done in compliance with conditions imposed under Article 4(2) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; or


 (c) something done with the agreement of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of inspector or by his direction.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15, 17 to 19 and 24 to 26.

Mr. Ingram: New clause 3 and the amendments grouped with it deal with introducing a new notice requirement for related protest meetings. New clause 3 introduces the requirement itself, Government amendment No. 24 introduces the definition of a protest meeting, Government amendment No. 25 defines a related protest meeting and Government amendment No. 26 is consequential.
In addition, Government amendment No. 15 would put a duty on the Parades Commission to keep itself informed of the conduct not only of those taking part in public processions but of those taking part in a related protest meeting. Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 would put a duty on the commission to draw up a code of conduct for protest meetings.
The Government have been acutely conscious of the need to ensure that the legislation is both balanced and seen to be balanced. We recognise that some have felt that the legislation and the North report focused exclusively on parades as the problem and did not take sufficient account of sometimes violent protests against parades. That criticism is mistaken, but we have recognised the need to address such perceptions.
A number of amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Those included measures to harmonise penalties in the Bill, to ensure that comparable penalties could be applied to protesters and marchers who broke the law. Today, we are introducing a number of further Government amendments, which similarly aim to ensure balance in the Bill.
The North report considered whether there was a case for introducing a notice requirement for open-air public meetings. Paragraphs 12.76 to 12.81 of the report concluded that a notice regime for all open-air public meetings would not be appropriate, particularly given the number of uncontroversial public meetings, such as open-air preaching, which would unnecessarily be caught by a notice requirement. The North report considered whether it might be possible to cover protest meetings only, but thought that that would not be practicable.
In Committee, amendments were proposed by the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), which dealt specifically with the concept of protest meetings. In some cases, they were described as counter-demonstrations or counter-processions. Of course,

if protesters choose to arrange a procession of their own, that will fall to be dealt with by the Parades Commission in the usual way.
In Committee, I explained that it would be important to get the definitions right, and I also set out some of the difficulties that there might be in defining a counter-demonstration. I did, however, say that I would consider the matter further.
I have taken considerable time to consider the issue and I have read our detailed debates in Committee. We have now come up with a workable definition. The definition of related protest meetings will ensure that the vast majority of open-air public meetings will continue to be able to take place without a notice requirement. That helps to satisfy the concerns expressed in the North report. But equally, the definition is tight enough to ensure that all related protest meetings are covered. The notice requirement will provide valuable new information for the police and the Parades Commission. We did not want to overburden the commission with extra work, but what we have set forth will provide it with additional and valuable new information.
None the less, the police will be obliged to pass notice of protests on to the Parades Commission, and it obviously makes sense for the commission to have as much information as possible about the likely reaction to a parade from which it has received an application.
Another important feature of the amendments is that the notice requirement for protest meetings is rather shorter at 14 days than the 28 days required for a procession. I believe that to be a sensible measure. It would clearly not be possible to demand the same notice requirement for protest meetings as that which applies to a procession. By definition, a protest meeting cannot be organised until it is known that the procession has been planned and is likely to go ahead.
Let me explain some of the mechanisms that will operate as a consequence of the amendments. Some might argue that there is a problem of conflicting responsibilities if a public procession is governed by the Parades Commission, while the related protest meeting is governed by the police. In addition, the criteria on which conditions can be imposed will differ slightly. Protest meetings that are largely public order based will continue to be dealt with under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. However, processions will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, which include the factor of impact on relations within the community.
The North report considered whether it would be helpful for parades and protests to be dealt with by the same authority. It concluded in paragraph 12.96 that there was no particular difficulty, and recommended leaving open-air public meetings under the control of the police, using their existing powers in the order, if necessary. I agree entirely with the report's findings on that point. We anticipate the closest possible communication between the Parades Commission and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am certain that that co-operation will continue, and both will ensure that the combined effect of any measures imposed minimises any difficulties that might result from the procession or the related protest meeting.

Mr. William Ross: We on the Ulster Unionist party Bench have read new clause 3 with


considerable interest. Exactly where in the Bill is it intended to insert the words that appear on the amendment paper? Why is it intended to continue article 5 of the 1987 order? Is it still necessary, or do the Government intend to repeal it?

Mr. Ingram: I shall come back to article 5.
The new clause would be placed appropriately within the Bill, according to the structure of the legislation. That was not a serious point. The important point is what the new clause contains and where its powers lie with regard to related protest meetings.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make it clear that the order has draconian powers on open-air meetings? For example, a police officer can say to a person addressing an open-air meeting, "I don't like what you're saying; you've got to stop speaking." He also has the power to keep people from attending meetings and listening to what is being said. He can say, "I don't want you to stand here and listen." The order has tremendous power on open-air meetings.

Mr. Ingram: That is indeed the case. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he referred to draconian powers. Those are appropriate powers to deal with public order. That is why the legislation was passed in the first place. I appreciate that he may not like legislation to deal with public order problems relating to open-air meetings that could possibly constitute public disorder, but all sensible people recognise the importance of the powers that reside with the RUC.
In Committee, I promised to consider a code of conduct for protest meetings. Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 deal specifically with that issue. They address—as recommended in the report—the perception that the Bill is unbalanced. As I said, new clause 3 introduces a notice period for protest meetings.
I maintain, however, that to make the commission responsible for making determinations on protest meetings is unnecessary. Going beyond North in that respect would impose a major burden on the commission in what will already be an extremely busy period, certainly in the year ahead and, perhaps, beyond that.
The commission will not deal with protest meetings directly, but it will have the power to take into account the behaviour of protesters. The amendments will enable the Parades Commission to recognise, for example, the extent to which the past misbehaviour of marchers at parades was provoked by similar misconduct on the part of protesters. The commission will thus be able to take into account the extent to which those parading or those protesting have breached the codes of conduct. That will be a useful contribution to the material that the commission will have at its disposal in coming to final decisions.
I believe that those measures are useful and proportionate. I hope that they demonstrate the Government's recognition that the problem of marching is not simply with the marchers, and that we are not looking to create structures to bear down on the overall number of public processions. As a consequence of the debate that took place in the other place and in

Committee, further consideration has been given to the issues that were raised about a code of conduct and a notice requirement for protest meetings. I hope that the House finds the new clause and amendments that I have proposed sensible. I urge that they be accepted.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for taking away the recommendations that we made in Committee and coming back with the new clause and the amendments, most of which were tabled by me and my hon. Friends. New clause 3 is very much in line with the wording of new clause 1, which I tabled in Committee, but there are some additions. As I develop my argument, I shall focus on some of the changes.
Principally, we tabled our amendments to try to get more balance into this important measure. I say important because only today, from a radio phone-in programme that I listened to, it was obvious that there is tremendous resistance in the Province, particularly from Unionists, to the thrust of the Bill. It is vital that we in this place are seen to be even-handed as we write legislation for the first time to deal with what is accepted as a protracted problem, but, in forming the legislation, we might exacerbate rather than improve the position.
In that context, it is vital that the public in Northern Ireland—particularly one side of the public—consider the legislation to be even-handed, balanced and a genuine attempt to accept and tolerate marches and parades that have been going on for many years. We must ensure that it is not heavy-handed and that it does not make those who organise and take part in parades and processions leap through too many hoops, with some of their activities becoming almost criminal.
I now deal with the specifics of new clause 3. I should like the Minister to comment on them as best he can. Subsection (1) refers to the organiser of a protest meeting having to submit notice of such a proposed protest meeting
to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held.
That wording differs markedly from that in the provision that relates to the notice that needs to be given by organisers of a public procession, who have to leave notice at the police station nearest the procession's proposed starting place. That could mean two different police stations.
I accept that some processions and parades may cover several miles. The protesters might organise a protest at one position along the route of a parade or decide to protest at the start or finish. The notice that must be handed in will in many cases go to different police stations. Given the 14-day time scale for giving notice and the vagaries of the post and administration, I fear that proper and due notice will not be given, particularly to the Parades Commission, whose principal job in this context is to facilitate mediation between the two factions. Perhaps the Minister could give reasons for the different wordings.
My amendment left out the wording in subsections (2)(b) and (4)(f), which are linked. Subsection (2) provides that notice shall be given not later than 14 days before a meeting, and that, if that is not reasonably practicable, it should be given as soon as it is reasonably practicable. If notice is given later, reasons must be given for the notice being late.
I omitted that on purpose. The 14 days was my recommendation in my original new clause 1; I suppose that I should be grateful to the Minister for accepting that time scale. It seemed a reasonable length of time, given that the parade organisers would have to give 28 days' notice. The provision would give a clear 14 days for those who wished to protest to get organised and to submit their notice of intention to protest.
Keeping the two paragraphs gives a green light, if not a licence, to those who wish to be mischievous to delay handing in their notice. As long as they give a reasonable explanation, it comes under the term "reasonably practicable". The shorter the time scale, the more difficult it will be for the commission and its facilitators to do their job. What would happen if, for example, notice were given with only six days to go?

Mr. Robert McCartney: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about two different police stations, does he agree that the 28 days' notice will presumably be made public, and made public with reference to the police station at which it was given? People organising a counter-demonstration could reasonably be expected to serve notice at the place from where the notice of procession emanated. That supports his first point. Secondly, on his valid objection in respect of the term "reasonably practicable", most counter-demonstrations will almost certainly be argued to be extemporary or spontaneous protests. They will rarely be accompanied by people who accept that they are the progenitors. To put in the "reasonably practicable" escape clause will be no more than an encouragement to give notice at the last minute and disclaim responsibility.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for supporting my arguments. It is indeed the case that, if 28 days is the notice required from the organisers of a parade, it gives plenty of time for the parade to be publicised, for the commission to be notified, and even for the commission and its facilitators to make approaches to the groups in the community which they know, for historical reasons, might wish to organise a protest. I suggested 14 days as a reasonable time, bearing in mind the 28 days' notice for the parade organisers.
However, I am concerned that the two paragraphs that introduce the term "reasonably practicable" give a green light, an encouragement, to people to delay putting in notice, to force the commission between a rock and a hard place. If it has only a few days to make a decision, does it suspend the parade to allow greater time for discussions or come to a rushed decision? It would be pilloried either way, by the protesters or the march organisers, for not giving proper and due consideration to the proposal. I should like the Minister to address those questions.
6.15 pm
New clause 3 raises another question that the Minister could helpfully clarify. We are talking about giving advance notice of protests about public processions. If, within a short time scale, it is obvious to the commission and the police that serious disorder could ensue and the protesters are not looking to give way—they may or may not have given proper notice, but they may have given reasons why they could not do so—who is going to ban or prohibit the protest meeting?
Some of the amendments tabled by me and by Northern Irish Members that we discussed in Committee sought to give powers either to the Secretary of State or to the commission to prohibit what we then called counter-demonstrations—I am more than happy to go along with protest meetings—if there was going to be serious public disorder. In amendment No. 24, the Government have tied the definition of a protest meeting to an open-air public meeting. It may be that the powers to prohibit come under paragraph 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
Can the Minister confirm that the power to ban a protest meeting if the situation is getting out of hand remains with either the Secretary of State or the RUC under the open-air public meeting paragraph of the 1987 order?
On amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, once the Minister had accepted the need to be more even-handed in the legislation and offer more balance to the two communities, it was obvious that he had to consider bringing in protest meetings at various places in the Bill. That is in keeping with some recommendations in the North report, which I think was balanced in its approach and attempted to find a way through this difficulty by being as even-handed as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for adding "and protest meetings" to clause 2(1)(c), where the duties of the commission are spelled out. The commission now has to keep itself generally informed as to the conduct of public processions and of the protest meetings that have often gone alongside parades or processions.
On clause 3, amendments Nos. 17 and 18 again follow the recommendations of the North report that a code of conduct should be issued by the commission, to provide guidance not only to persons who are organising public processions but to those persons who intend or hope to organise protest meetings. I have two questions on that for the Minister. Before coming to his decision to include the new wording in those amendments, did he seek the views of the Parades Commission and in particular of Mr. Graham? If so, what did Mr. Graham have to say? Does the Minister intend to recommend to the commission that it follow the suggestions in the North report on a possible code of conduct for those making a protest against a legally held parade?
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Minister has thought carefully about the reasoned amendments that we tabled in Committee. He was obviously persuaded by the power of our argument. I think he will agree with the Opposition that the new clause and the amendments strengthen the Bill and go some way towards redressing the imbalance that is perceived by one side of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: New clause 3 and the amendments grouped with it show a significant change in the ethos of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill, which should perhaps now be called Public Processions and Protest Meetings (Northern Ireland) Bill.
I have great sympathy with the Minister. In Committee, he was subjected to arguments about the alleged imbalance in the Bill. The propaganda outside the House was that the Bill was intended not to regulate processions and parades but to deny people the right to hold them. That is a great pity, because in Committee the Minister


strongly rebutted that argument. He rightly claimed that the Government were trying to be even-handed in their attitude to parades and events that flow from them. I hate quoting the Minister's words back at him, but in Committee he said:
We demonstrated at length during the Bill's consideration in the other place that there is no need for the extension of the Secretary of State's banning power to cover counter-demonstrations because she already has the power under the public order order to ban all open air meetings. That power will remain when the Bill comes into effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 January 1998; c. 52.]
That was the point of the intervention of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 contains provisions to deal with counter-demonstrations and protest meetings, so the necessity for the new clause must be called into question.
The wording of the new clause will create considerable difficulties for those whose duty it will be to implement and abide by the regulations that will flow from the Bill. My interpretation of the North report is that it came down against the extension of the notice requirements to what it called open-air public meetings, but which we are now calling protest meetings: they are the same. I cannot understand why North has been quoted as an authority for the introduction of new clause 3, given that it says that the requirements should not be extended to open-air meetings—or protest meetings.
Subsection (4)(g) is almost the same as clause 6 as it appears in the Bill, but there are two words missing. The subsection refers to
such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function".
The words that have been left out are "the Commission". A definite decision was made to exclude the commission from any duty to consider public protests.

Mr. Moss: That is one of the strong recommendations made by North. Page 181 of the report states:
we recommend that a Code of Conduct should be introduced covering the behaviour both of participants in a parade and of protesters.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for that correction. It was my interpretation that North did not want an extension of the legislation to open-air meetings. There may be a difference between open-air meetings as he conceived them, and what we now call protest or anti-march meetings. I will let that go for the time being.
By omitting the word "Commission", the Government are establishing two structures: parades and processions will be governed by the commission, and protests or anti-march demonstrations will be dealt with solely by the police and the Secretary of State. That will lead to a great deal of confusion in Northern Ireland, and to claim and counter-claim.
The presumption is that a parade should go ahead, unless there is the threat of public disorder. If the commission makes a determination that a parade should go ahead, and notice is given to the police and to the Secretary of State of a counter-demonstration, will the

police or, ultimately, the Secretary of State decide that, because the commission has allowed the parade, they must, willy-nilly and to be consistent, ban, restrict or abolish the right of peaceful protest? The people who will enforce the Bill have been given a difficult task. The two-tier structure that the Minister is creating will be exploited, and it will confuse the issue in the public's mind.
People who genuinely want to protest, be it by holding a parade or some other event, have the right to do so in a peaceful and orderly way. New clause 3 and related amendments will make it much easier for certain elements to utilise the new requirements of the Bill to orchestrate protests that are not genuinely peaceful, do not genuinely reflect local concerns, and could be exploited by any number of people.
If a disruptive element at a peaceful local protest meeting gets out of control, does that damn the peaceful local protest for all time? Given the definition of a public protest and the other amendments dealing with locality and vicinity, will people not be able to make a peaceful public protest outside their own homes unless they have registered their intention to do so? We are going a long way towards withdrawing fundamental human rights.
My main fear, however, is that people wanting to create public disorder may use the new clause and amendments for their purposes. I know that that was not the intention, and that the Minister was trying—legitimately—to deal with improper accusations that the Bill was unbalanced; but he risks creating a two-tier system, and introducing a whole new range of provisions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the purpose of the new clause—as, I suspect, did the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are simply trying to require protesters to give notice of their intention? Can he tell me what is wrong with that concept?

Mr. McGrady: I have no problem with the concept of giving notice of a protest, but we are talking about giving notice to an entirely different body from that envisaged in the Bill as it stands. The Bill states that notice of parades, assemblies or whatever must be given to the police and then to the commission, but the new clause specifically and deliberately excludes the commission.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: I was about to sit down.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) finished his speech?

Mr. McGrady: I should like to hear what the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McCartney: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman.
I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. Does he agree that the commission's function is to determine whether the procession, and those who may wish to protest, will cause a breach of public order? If that is so, the commission should presumably be considering both the procession and the protest. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was making the point that, if the words "reasonably practicable" were retained, the commission might not know whether a protest was to take place until the last moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is becoming more like a speech.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has greatly assisted my argument. I was not sure that he would do that when he rose to speak.
According to the Bill, the commission will have to consider all the aspects of proposed parades, processions and protests in order to make a determination. As I understand it, a determination on parades or processions will be made by the commission, while a determination on protests will be made by the police or the Secretary of State. That is a recipe for very difficult circumstances.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad of the opportunity to speak about the Bill today, because the House saw fit to exclude my party from the Standing Committee, although we represent a sizeable part of Unionist thinking and although there are three Unionist Members outside the Official Unionist party. That was intolerant. Excluding people who, having been elected Members of Parliament, took part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill does not serve the purposes of democracy, and does not enhance the democratic image of the House in Northern Ireland. I shall say no more about that, except that I understand that the arrangements have been altered in regard to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. I am glad about that, but I should not have had to stand up in the House and say what I have said.
I am afraid that the Minister is not prepared to get to grips with one fact—the fact that what caused the current trouble was the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Hon. Members shake their heads, but I have sat here for many years, and I sat through public order debates relating to England, Scotland and Wales. I know that it would be impossible, under the same arrangements, to get the proposals in that order through the House.
Let us imagine that a police officer who decided that he did not like what a man in the street was saying could say, "You must stop your open-air meeting." No other order allows that. Let us imagine that that officer could say to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), "I do not like you listening to that man. You must move on." Such measures are draconian. We must accept that the 1987 order sowed the seeds of the current situation in Northern Ireland.
It does not often happen that all but three Northern Ireland Members go to prison over such an issue, but that is what happened. Those Northern Ireland Members realised what the order would bring about. Many people are groaning and crying and saying that what has happened is terrible, but it was bound to happen. The south of Ireland gloated, and said, "We now have an order that will deal with

the Unionist population in Northern Ireland." We have seen how that has come about. What is more, we know from the words of Gerry Adams that he and the provisional IRA worked for three years to bring it about.
It is sometimes said that Unionists in the House are much too outspoken—that they say far too much, and express themselves far too strongly. Yesterday, I picked up a paper and read the comments of a young lady journalist from the bogside, a Roman Catholic. She had something to say about Martin McGuinness, something to say about Gerry Adams and something to say about the type of people with whom we have to deal. Addressing Martin McGuinness, she said:
How dare you, big chief republican, current killers' mouthpiece, former killers' colleague, clamour for prosecutions?
She said that it was a pity that he would not be examined for what he had done. She said:
Mrs. Rose Heggarty must long to know. You promised, on bended knee, that her son was safe to return from exile.
He was in hiding from the IRA who had threatened to kill him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are discussing new clause 3, which is not related to the matters that the hon. Gentleman is raising. He must confine himself to the new clause.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am confining myself to new clause 3. We are talking about the opportunity to protest against processions. The leader of the IRA-Sinn Fein has told us that he brought about the current position—along with his colleague Martin McGuinness—for that purpose. I am talking about a person who is responsible for bringing about the circumstances that have led to our discussing new clause 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not discuss what brought us to the situation. We are debating new clause 3 and the history of the matter is not before the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that we were entitled to put matters into their context. This is a serious matter and I regret that I am ruled out of order for stating what a Roman Catholic lady from Londonderry had to say about one of the prime movers in this matter. I shall relate her final statement, which is a simple one. She said:
Sinn Fein should shut up … They have covered a dirty, murky, bloody past of their own in a way that makes Widgery look positively Godly.
Of course Mrs. Heggarty mourns the killing of her son who was brought to a house by Martin McGuinness and later killed despite promises that had been made. That is the background to the debate.
The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order has to be taken with the Bill because the Minister has said that under the order the Secretary of State and the police are given certain powers. If we had approached the matter in the context of that order, which gave rise to the situation, perhaps we could have found a solution. We are not heading towards a solution because one of my political opponents, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), said earlier that the new clause is a recipe for more trouble. That is because the commission will deal with processions and a different authority will deal with protests against them.
The hon. Member for South Down is right. As the House knows, I am not holding up a banner for any commission but the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who know the situation are talking sense.
The Minister will not always be in Northern Ireland but we have to live with the situation there. I do not understand the Government's thinking on this matter. The Minister says that they want balance, but the new clause will not provide that. It does not deal with protests and processions on the same level and in the same way. To obtain balance they would have to be dealt with in the same way, but that is not being done.
It has been said that perhaps the Bill is not balanced, but there has been no acknowledgement of that imbalance. We said from the beginning that it was unbalanced but that has been forgotten. If a clause similar to the new clause had been in the Bill on Second Reading we could have dealt with it in the context of the whole Bill, but the new clause appears after the Bill has passed the other place. That is not fair on such an important matter.
6.45 pm
Some people have asked me tonight, "Do you think that the debate will be long?" That is an amazing question. We are dealing with one of Northern Ireland's most protracted problems. There were cries of outrage throughout the House after Drumcree, and hon. Members ruthlessly condemned people who should have been commended, yet in a debate on this matter, people want to get home early. The House must realise that we are discussing a serious matter and if we do not get the legislation right, hon. Members, Roman Catholic and Protestant people and people in the rest of the kingdom will reap the consequences. Northern Ireland Members must have answers from the Government to some disturbing questions.
The protests issue is serious. Open-air meetings are entirely different from protest meetings against processions. It cannot be said that all open-air meetings are in the same category. The public order legislation refers to such meetings as religious, social or political. We are discussing meetings that have been organised for the one purpose of stopping those who for years have walked along a particular road. The Bill was born out of Drumcree. Protests and how they are to be handled must be tightly defined.
Mr. Adams said that they worked for three years organising protests. They will not give up, because they have made great headway. We must examine the public order part of the Bill and define protests instead of lumping them in with ordinary open-air meetings. That is entirely unfair.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a vigorous argument. Why did he not table any amendments?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Because I was not allowed on the Committee: I was kept off it. I have been in the House longer than the Minister and I know that if I had tabled amendments they would not have been called. Almost all the amendments that have been called by Madam Speaker are Government amendments. Who does the Minister think he is talking to? Does he think that I came here yesterday? I know a little about the workings of the House.
The Government would not have liked 100 amendments from me on the amendment paper. They would have laughed at that, and yet the Minister asks why I did not table amendments. I did not need to table any because good ones have already been tabled and I shall address them when we come to them. If that is all that the Minister can say in a serious debate, it shows what will happen in Northern Ireland in future when his hand is on the tiller and difficulties arise.
A proper period must be set for a protest notice; we must leave the loophole of "if practicable". If the legislation does not contain a specified period of time for submitting the notice, people will get out of the requirement by leaving the submission of the notice to the last minute. A protest will be held only when it has the best effect. The hon. Member for South Down raised another important issue when he asked whether the new clause would cut out a spontaneous protest. If an event is taking place outside someone's door, he may protest, but if he has not given notice of it he will be in serious trouble. No Government could enforce that law, because there are protests every day about something or other.
Let me deal with the issue of responsibility. We attended a big meeting on Friday at the city hall, and I am sure that the trade unionists who organised it wanted it to be peaceful. It was far from peaceful, though, because elements came with banners that were insulting to one part of the community. A woman came down and said that she represented the politics of West Belfast. She was told by the trade unionists that she was not going to be allowed to speak and they had a whole row among themselves.
Were the meeting organisers responsible for the trouble that ensued at the city hall on Friday? Not at all. They called the meeting in good faith. They were not protesting about anything, but there were elements—Gerry Adams was there—to ensure that the republican view would be brought to the fore and that the banners would be carried. The whole thing was supposed to be about peace, but ended in a charade.
We need to handle these matters with great care and to reflect on them closely, because there are great difficulties with regard to these protests. I do not understand why the House is setting up a commission to examine parades because those parades are largely Orange, Apprentice Boys and Royal Black Institution parades. We know that the Bill is largely aimed at the parades, yet the people who protest about those parades are going to be treated differently. Why is that? Instead of balancing it out, the Bill balances things in their favour.
With all due respect to them, the police do not operate in the same way in every district in Northern Ireland. We have a clamping law that says that, if people do not pay for their car tax disc, the car will be clamped, but that law does not work in the republican areas, because people who are employed to put on clamps dare not go into those areas. If they sat down outside a republican's or a leading IRA man's home and put a clamp on his wheel, they would probably be knee-capped before they got up from the bending position. So who is going to carry out this legislation? Will it be carried out freely?
I challenge the Minister: in the past year, how many illegal parades have been held in Northern Ireland of which he had no notice and where nothing was done? Why was nothing done? Because they were in republican areas. Those people gave no notice to the police. They had their parades, and nothing was done.
We are back to the same situation with the new clause. Therefore, it is not a solution. We will not have one until we are prepared to consider the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, which the Government have set their mind on not examining, because I think they want the power to be invested in the Secretary of State and in the police. However, we are not going to find a solution until we have legislation that can be lived with by the majority population and by the minority population.
This Bill has been rejected by the people who are going to walk on these parades. They have already said that they will not talk to the commission. If they are not going to talk to it, how will it do its work? The Government need to think long and hard about what they are doing and about the new clause in particular.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall develop some of the points that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made on new clause 3. There is a curious dichotomy in the proposal that the commission should decide whether a parade should be permitted, but some other body—the Secretary of State or the police—should decide on the protest meeting.
As the hon. Member for South Down said, that will give rise to much difficulty. The problem arises from the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which in effect became a protester's charter. If protesters opposed a parade that was to be conducted perfectly lawfully—and it was accepted that it would be so conducted, with proper notice given—so forcefully that the likely outcome would be a breach of the peace, the parade would be stopped. In effect, if people wanted to stop a lawful parade, and they mounted such violent and unlawful opposition that public disorder could be guaranteed, whereupon the parade would be banned.
I understand that the purpose of the Bill—and, indeed, of the commission—is to assess the overall situation in relation to any parade, balancing various considerations on both sides and considering the likelihood of whether, in the circumstances, it would cause such local protest that it merited being banned, or whether it should proceed.
The people who will organise a parade—it is accepted that most of the parades will be of a pro-Unionist, Orange, Royal Black Institution or Apprentice Boys variety—are known and recognised. In most cases, they have paraded on traditional routes on many occasions. They can be identified, they are responsible citizens and they can all be made amenable to the law. They are the sort of people who will put in a notice within the prescribed time, fulfilling all the requirements of the legislation, so that the commission, from the day that that notice is filed, will be aware of who is organising the parade, where it is to start and finish, and what its composition will be.
The commission will be charged with the task of assessing the entire situation, but the new clause says that people who intend to organise some form of protest or opposition demonstration should give 14 days' notice. Does that mean that the commission will be unable fully to assess the situation until it receives notice of a counter-demonstration?
For example, if no notice is given until the required 14 days before a public procession is to be held, what will the commission do during those 14 days—the first 14 days of the 28-day notice? Will it assess the position on the following basis: this parade is being organised by

recognised, reasonable and lawful people on a traditional route that, in the past, has not had any objection? It could make a decision possibly within two or three days, but, under the new clause, it could not conceivably make a decision for at least 14 days—because 14 of the 28 days can elapse before counter-demonstrators must give their notice.
That situation is bad enough, but then we come to the provision that was mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), which deals with a late notice. Someone may offer the defence that it has not been reasonably practicable to give an earlier notice of a protest demonstration. Will the commission have to wait until the eleventh hour before it gets the final, vital information that is necessary for it to make an overall decision on whether the counter-demonstration is likely to give rise to such a breach of public order that the procession should not go ahead?
That is but one of the anomalies that will arise unless the commission is seized of the overall situation and is in a position to decide that the procession can go ahead, taking into account all the information that is available to it from anyone who may possibly be organising a counter-demonstration.
To assess the situation, the commission would have not only to take into account all the information that would be available on the 28 days' notice required from those organising the procession, but to have all the information about the nature and type of the people and the nature and place of the counter-demonstration. It would be in the interests of those who are going to parade and those who are going to protest—and it would certainly be in the interests of the commission—that the commission should know at the earliest possible date just what will happen, so that it can make a sensible and valid decision one way or the other.
7 pm
If the 28 days' notice—the notice to be given by those organising the parade or procession—is to be kept, the appropriate time for notice to be given by those who are organising the counter-demonstration is 21 days in advance. That would enable the commission to remove itself from the uncomfortable position of being between a rock and a hard place. It would know 28 days before the proposed date what the paraders were going to do, the nature of their procession and where it was coming from and going to, and it would also know within 21 days the sort of opposition that the procession was likely to engender. It would have three weeks in which to consider the whole matter and, we hope, make a decision.
If we proceed as suggested, the commission could consider the circumstances of the procession and decide that nothing appeared to be wrong with it but have to withhold its decision to allow it to go ahead until it found out whether there was to be a counter-parade—and it would not know that for at least another 14 days. Indeed, it might not know until two or three days before the actual date of the procession should the House accept the notion of giving notice only
as soon as it is reasonably practicable
to do so.
There is a great deal of good sense in what the hon. Member for South Down suggested. The commission should be seized of the entire situation in


relation to the paraders and those who intend to bring the counter-demonstration. Unless one body has that information reasonably in advance of the given date of the procession, it cannot conceivably, in practical terms, be in a position to make any valid or worthwhile decision.

Mr. William Thompson: We welcome the Government's conversion to the notion of taking counter-demonstrations into consideration.
The Government were bound to have known all along that the problem lay not with legal processions but with illegal opposition to them. We do not object to protests, provided they are within the law and do not go out of their way to stop a lawful parade. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in Northern Ireland. People who are opposed in principle to parades not only protest but go out of their way to try to stop them. Of course, they have been encouraged in that by the failure of the Royal Ulster Constabulary leadership to deal properly with them under existing legislation. We therefore welcome the new clause.
One question that arises relates to the 14 days' notice. I understand that the commission has announced that it will make a determination five days before a parade is due to be held. It therefore seems more likely that it will be after the determination is known that the protest will be held. It is more likely that notice will be given not under subsection (2)(a) of the new clause, which refers to
not later than 14 days",
but under subsection (2)(b), which stipulates
as soon as it is reasonably practicable".
The Minister has spoken a great deal about balance and said that the new clause will provide it. I disagree entirely. The new clause certainly goes some way towards balancing the situation, but it does not go the whole way. The criteria that will be used to judge a protest will to some extent be different from those used to judge a proper parade.
For example, we are told that, when judging a parade—that is, judging whether a determination should be issued in relation to it—the commission will have to take into consideration
any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community",
as stated in clause 7(6)(c). As we are talking about parity, perhaps the Minister will explain why, when it comes to a protest in a similar situation, the impact on relations within the community should not be taken into consideration as well. It may well be that in certain circumstances and in a certain community protesters from the other community will come and create havoc, so surely the impact of a protest on relations within the community should be taken into consideration, too.
There is also a lack of parity in the Secretary of State's powers in relation to a protest and to a procession. Under the order, the Secretary of State does not have the power to ban a protest. She can ban all protests for a time, yet under this Bill she can ban a particular procession. That means that there is disparity in this instance, too. The whole thing is still unbalanced. I think that the Minister should consider that imbalance.
As far as it goes, we welcome the Government's conversion. Unfortunately, the proposal is very late and has only been dragged out of them, whereas it should have been included in the Bill at the very start. In fact, had they added something simple to the existing legislation, it would probably have been more helpful than what they are trying to do now. In any event, we welcome the Government's conversion and hope that the imbalance will be removed. We shall certainly recommend how that can be done.

Shona McIsaac: I am glad that hon. Members are welcoming the new clause; I think that shows that the Government are listening to the concerns of people in Northern Ireland.
Central to the Bill is the philosophy that people have a right to march and a right to peaceful assembly. With those rights come responsibilities; everyone must recognise that. The key responsibility is to recognise the freedom of others and the right of everyone to live his life without fear and intimidation.
I agree with what was said in Committee to the effect that the majority of the approximately 3,000 parades held in Northern Ireland every year pass off peacefully. Only a few are contested, but it is those contested parades that cast a shadow over Northern Ireland. If we do not deal with those parades, I do not think that there will ever be real peace in Northern Ireland.
I know from experience that a contested parade can be intimidating and cause much fear. I am part of what is wonderfully described in Belfast as a mixed marriage—I am Presbyterian and my husband is Catholic. I have visited my in-laws in north Belfast, which, as those who are familiar with the area know, is a very mixed community where there has always been much tension. I have been there when marches have taken place and I, too, have felt fear and intimidation. No one, from whichever community, should have to put up with the taunts and insults that I heard.
The new clause will enshrine in the Bill rights and responsibilities. It recognises the right to march and the rights of people to protest peacefully, and I am glad that hon. Members have welcomed it.
I have seen many marches in Northern Ireland. As a Presbyterian girl I have accompanied my husband to some spectacular Easter parades—they are part of history and tradition. Similarly, in the countryside in the summer, we have seen Orange Lodge parades, which are likewise part of history and tradition. The few processions that cause the problems—Drumcree is the most recent flash point—are the reason we are discussing this subject. I hope that the new clause will ensure that the protests, aggression, fear and intimidation cease.

Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that, in the areas where there has been trouble, that trouble has been caused mainly by the attempts of Sinn Fein-IRA to stop parades, and that the vast majority of parades pass peaceably because there is no threat from that quarter?

Shona McIsaac: I do not agree. I have seen nationalist as well as Orange parades disrupted in Belfast. Unfortunately, a minority on both sides cause trouble.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady will be aware that a number of my colleagues live in Belfast. She has said


that she has seen nationalist parades disrupted, but can she tell us time and place, as we would be very interested to know?

Shona McIsaac: I am afraid that I cannot give an example from my own experience, but my mother-in-law and father-in-law told me about a parade in north Belfast from Eia street, through Duncairn gardens and into Tigers bay that caused much fear for the Catholic community in the New Lodge.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have had parishioners who live in Eia street and I know where Tigers bay is, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that the parade that was impeded was not a nationalist one. It is tragic to mislead the House in any way.

Shona McIsaac: I apologise if I have misled the House. The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am sure that he will agree that the community in the New Lodge area is very mixed and there has been much tension over the years—it has suffered more sectarian killings than most parts of Belfast. I am sure that both communities there want the killings to stop and want once again to live in peace.
As I said, I am glad that hon. Members welcome the new clause. It was not dragged from the Government; the Government listened to the debates and acknowledged much of what was said, and I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The new clause requires those who want to participate in a counter-demonstration to notify their intentions 14 days in advance. It represents a substantial response to many people's concerns, so Liberal Democrats support its fundamental aim. Indeed, this group of amendments is probably the most important that we shall discuss tonight.
The purpose of the Bill is to balance the rights of people to march against the rights of people to object to those marches. That will create a more level playing field, which will make parades much less of a sticking point and a cause of friction in the community.
I agree that it would be iniquitous if one group had to notify the police of its intentions 28 days in advance whereas others could arrange protests on the spot. Some counter-demonstrations seem to have become as traditional as the marches against which they protest. It would be grossly unfair if the original march were regulated but the counter-march were not. The new clause and the amendments will go a considerable way to addressing the bitterness that such an iniquity could cause.
I assume that the RUC was consulted on the new clause and that it will be pleased with it, as it should make it easier to police the contentious marches, which, as others have said tonight, represent only a tiny minority of the marches that take place each year in Northern Ireland.
I have a few concerns, which I shall briefly relate. The Minister should explain why different authorities will assess the cases for the counter-demonstration and the demonstration. I can see some logic to that, but there is a danger of creating unmatched messages and different interpretations of the validity of the two marches.
Subsection (2) of the new clause creates a loophole by requiring that people who propose to organise a counter-demonstration should give notice not later than 14 days before the meeting is to take place or,
if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice.
We all know that there are trouble-makers; as other hon. Members have said, this provision is a licence to cause trouble. In what circumstances will 14 days after notice of the march give insufficient leeway for those planning a counter-demonstration? They will have a full two weeks in which to get their act together and formally make their intentions clear.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) expressed his concern about civil liberties. He made an important point. In theory, if the measures are mishandled, they could restrict civil liberties. It almost goes without saying that they have to be handled sensitively; if they are handled too strictly and restrictively, people will have a right to complain. Clearly, those issues are not absolutely clear-cut. A great deal of sensitivity is needed in balancing things that we may feel uncomfortable in permitting against concern that banning such things would simply restrict too much people's right to demonstrate or counter-demonstrate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say—I might have been wrong—that some of the counter-demonstrations were as old as the parades. I do not know of any recent counter-demonstration that has caused trouble which was not a new counter-demonstration, carrying out the programme of IRA-Sinn Fein.

Mr. Öpik: To correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that some counter-demonstrations were as traditional as the parades—certainly not as old. In that sense, I completely agree with him. It would be rather strange to suggest that counter-demonstrations were set up on the same day as the original demonstrations. I was referring simply to a question of traditionality. By that I mean that communities have, in some cases, taken as a traditional element of the marching season participation in certain counter-demonstrations. I note his other point, which is valid.
Despite all our concerns about potential weaknesses, the new clause would tighten up something that needed to be addressed. In effect, it prevents or reduces the danger of allowing some people to exploit the law for narrow party political purposes. It will not eliminate exploitation, because some situations will always lend themselves to such political exploitation. However, it will hopefully strike a fairer balance. With the proviso of the Minister's explanations about the concerns that I and others have expressed, the Liberal Democrats will support the changes.

Mr. William Ross: This matter came before the Committee at some length. We had a long and interesting series of exchanges on the theme. Afterwards, one of my hon. Friends said to me that the question of people assembling for peaceful purpose and being thwarted by others in carrying out that purpose had been thoroughly explored a long time ago. So I did some checking up.
It is of note that, as long ago as 1882, the Salvation Army, which enjoys a favoured position under this legislation, had a certain amount of trouble. The position


taken by the mayor of the town at the time was that order could be easily maintained if the Salvation Army would simply stop parading. The account of events describes a
melée involving thousands, including Mayor Blatch, the largest brewer in town.
It continued:
Despite much superficial bloodshed, there were no injuries more serious then broken limbs.
The magistrates who considered the issue said that the ban that the mayor had tried to impose was "an interference with liberty". They
placed the blame for the riots squarely on a band of young roughs, paid agents of the liquor interests of Basingstoke.
Those events occurred in 1882, in the south of England. What has changed? All one has to do is take away "Mayor Blatch" and the "liquor interests" and insert "IRA", and take away "the Salvation Army" and insert "loyalist institutions", and one has the exact same set-up that we have seen in recent years in Northern Ireland.
The issue in Basingstoke—the same as the one that we are facing tonight—went to the Queen's Bench Division on 12 and 13 June 1882. The issue considered was:
The appellants assembled with others for a lawful purpose, and with no intention of carrying it out unlawfully, but with the knowledge that their assembly would be opposed, and with good reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would be committed by those who opposed it".
That goes rather further than anything that could be levelled against the Orange institution concerning any procession. The matter was
Held by Field and Cave, JJ., that they could not be rightly convicted for an unlawful assembly.
If the Minister is really looking for background and a solid foundation on which to base the changes that he is introducing, perhaps that is where he should start. If he starts from that solid foundation of more than 100 years since, he will come to the conclusion, as we have, that the Bill is fatally flawed, because it builds on a sandy foundation rather than a solid rock of reason.
I welcome the Government's limping conversion towards reality, but it is too little, too late. Far more should have been done and far more sense should have been injected—not only under this Government but under the previous Administration 11 years ago. If it had, we might have been in a happier position today.
That matter was the subject of many amendments in Committee. The Government, to some extent, have been converted to our point of view. We believe—the Government now accept our point—that those who assemble intent on disruption and confrontation and who are prepared to use violence to stop a customary legal procession or any procession to which they choose to object should come under the same rigorous conditions as those who are going about their peaceful business in the first place.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) got it wrong in believing that there have been only a few such examples. We have always maintained that there are as many as the IRA wish to create, and can create, at a given time. As soon as it has finished with one area, it moves to the next. There are not just a few; there are as many as it can manage. There is no comparison between the crowd

of thugs that we often see in the street, carrying petrol bombs, bombs and iron bars, with those who simply want to go on a customary parade of whatever type, usually to a church. I do not see how both groups can be placed on exactly the same footing.
What will the commission do as soon as it is informed? We were told in Committee that 28 days' notice was needed for the commission to manage to work its way through all the various steps that it has to take. Fourteen days is a lot shorter than 28 days, so, it will have only eight or nine days to reach a decision after it has received notice—provided that it is served with notice in the first place. I suspect that protesters will say, "Oh, but we did not know," and will go along at the very last minute. Instead of two weeks' notice, it will be two days—although the protesters will have spent a month preparing.
The Government have a problem, and the police will have a problem. I assume that that is the reason why the police will have to take the primary decision rather than leaving it with the commission, which I think will be informed, in practice, as a matter of courtesy.
What will the commission and the police do? Let us say that the commission is given 14 days' notice. Will it try to persuade the objectors to withdraw their objections? Will it try to persuade them to call off the protest? Will it try to persuade the organisers of the original procession to call off the procession? Will it meet representatives of IRA-Sinn Fein or send somebody else to meet it? Or will it begin to recognise just exactly what it is up against: an armed, criminal, murderous conspiracy to overthrow the United Kingdom's constitution? How will the commission operate?

Mr. Moss: Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to what might happen in relation to the giving of notice? We know that only one parade or procession will be involved in giving 28 days' notice, but how many protest notices could be given relating to that one procession before somebody decided that they must be taken as a whole? Or will they have to be considered individually?

Mr. Ross: That opens up the can of worms—not one relating to objections but the one constituted in the Bill. We believe that the whole arrangement is built on the wrong foundations, and can therefore do nothing but create more problems than it resolves. That is why I am asking questions. I hope that I shall get answers to them, but I have some doubts.
When the 28 days' notice is received, the commission will go out and ask people in the villages, "Do you object to this procession?" I know that that is not on the face of the Bill, but the guidance booklet that we were given says that that will be the procedure.
7.30 pm
The commission will go around to all those folk and say, "There is a procession coming down"—it may be the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Orange procession, or something else—"Do you object to it?" Two days later, there will be a full-blown campaigning group trying to stop that procession. That is one of the craziest aspects of the Bill, and the same situation arises repeatedly within it.
Until now, the protest groups have simply been groups of people with no particular entity, whereas now they will have an entity. As soon as they submit an application,


it will have to say that there is an organised body of people with a name. I think that that is a good thing, because it will tell us which individuals are organising the action. There must be a name on the application, so the police will start seeing who is actively involved and who is the person allegedly running things.
Can the Minister assure me that the Government's proposed changes will cover counter-processions? I thought that, in his opening remarks, he distinguished between counter-processions and sit-down demonstrations—"protest" implies a static protest, a crowd in the street. Apparently, such events are not processions but counter-demonstrations, because they have been arranged for the same time and place as something else. They would be caught under the rest of the legislation.
If that is so, the Minister has lifted and in some ways improved the provisions in the 1987 order, and is inserting them into the Bill. I welcome that. Those people have been getting away, literally without a scratch on them, for far too long. I welcome the fact that they are now being brought to the point where they will have to appear for what they are—organised groups out to stop processions.
There are a number of ill-intentioned people out there who will try to disrupt the processions. What then? Who will be responsible for making them amenable? Will the commission go and talk to them? Will the police? We should like to know who will do that.
Several aspects of new clause 3 cause me a certain amount of concern. The notice given to the police has to be handed to someone
not below the rank of sergeant".
In Committee, we had a long debate on the other aspect of that—the fact that the processional notice has to be given to a police officer not below that rank. The implication in that case was that, if there was no one of that rank present, people would have to come back the next day and the next day, and so on, until they found a sergeant.
The same words appear in new clause 3. I tabled an amendment that would have covered the point, but unfortunately it has not been selected. We have pointed out that in England and Scotland it is good enough for notice to be posted to the police, but that in Northern Ireland one has to take the notice to the police.
We debated the matter for some time in Committee, but the amendment that I tabled for Report stage—as I said, sadly, it has not been called—was to the effect that the notice could be left for the sergeant, by giving it to any police officer at the station. That is not being acted on, so new clause 3 has the same shortcomings in relation to giving notice as does the main body of the legislation. That point needs to be addressed, and if there is any opportunity to deal with it, the Government should do so before the Bill passes into law.
The plain truth is that the Bill is trying to deal with the wrong problem. It is trying to tell people, "Look, there are certain processions that cause trouble." There may be—but
I think that certain people are out to cause trouble about processions. I can think of several examples in places such as Belfast and Londonderry, where we have seen the Sinn Fein-IRA element processing year after year with every intention of causing offence to their neighbours, and behaving pretty badly, yet no action was taken against

them. Whenever those people found that no action was being taken against them in that sphere, they turned the whole thing on its head and decided to go back into the protest business, the opposition and confrontation business, in an effort to stop the Orange processions.
The Minister talked about a perception out there. Well, that is the perception out there. I believe that, in taking a little step, he has done something to redress the balance, but he has a long way to go yet, and no one could be totally satisfied with new clause 3.
The smaller amendments consequential on the new clause are of considerable interest in their own right. Among other things, there is Government amendment No. 24, which will write into clause 16 a definition of exactly what a "protest meeting" means. It means a gathering,
an open-air public meeting (within the meaning of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987)—

(a) which is, or is to be, held—

(i) at a place which is on or in the vicinity of the route or proposed route of a public procession; and
(ii) at or about the same time as the procession is being or is to be held; and

(b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on that route or proposed route".

The Minister may say that the proposed new paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) are clear, specifying as they do a place that must be on or in the vicinity of the route at or about the same time as the other procession. How on earth can anyone prove that the purpose or one of the purposes is to demonstrate opposition? People could say that they were coming to that place for a totally different purpose. I suspect that all sorts of lies will be told. We are up against a fairly cancerous organisation, which does not worry about a few lies if it can get them on the road.
Let us hope that amendment No. 24 will be interpreted by the authorities and by the police in the widest possible way, so as to ensure that a planned protest meeting will not be allowed to take place on or near the route anywhere near the time of the other procession, or even on the same day—for proposed new paragraph (b) is probably impossible to prove.
I cannot do other than say that I give the provisions a certain amount of welcome. Some of the wording is pretty much like the wording that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and I tabled at an earlier stage. However, we are also coming close to the view that I expressed several times in Committee—that we would wind up by allowing all processions to proceed. We may hear more about that later.
It seems to me that, so long as some processions are stopped and others are allowed, there will always be people who protest. There will always be a way for the wicked and the violent to raise Cain, as they have been doing for some time. The Government will not be done with public order legislation when they have finished with the Bill; I believe that we shall have to come back to the subject within a year.

Mr. Ingram: We have had a very extensive debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I shall do my best to deal with the many detailed points that were raised. First, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for her helpful comments. It is useful to hear new and different voices in


the House, and from people who have experience of events in Northern Ireland but do not necessarily represent any interests there. The greater and wider the knowledge of events in Northern Ireland, the better debates in this House will be.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend for her strong support of my position. She said that it was not the case that the new clause and the related amendments had been dragged out of the Government; far from it. Comments of that nature are ungracious. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) claimed all credit for what is happening, as if it were his inspired thinking that had brought it about.
We said in the other place that these matters were worthy of consideration. I said in Committee—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was present—that I wanted to hear the strength of the arguments. Clearly, an option was open to the Government to propose measures relating to these matters. I wanted to hear the full flavour and strength of the arguments in advance, and then reach a balanced position. Clearly, many varied points of view could be expressed. The new clause was not dragged out of me, nor was it a result of the inspired thinking of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
This is the benefit of the Committee and Report stages of a Bill—something which, in opposition, we never had the courtesy of from the previous Government, who were usually extremely discourteous in dealing with any substantive points on the Bills on which I was privileged to serve.
I say to the Ulster Unionist Members that I fully understand their overall view; they do not want this legislation at all. I recognise and welcome the spirit and the intent of their amendments. We can perhaps deal with the overall thrust of the Bill at Third Reading, but I have no doubt that we will hear many of the same points expressed again. I recognise that Ulster Unionist Members do not want the legislation, but I have to say that that is not the experience of those who have viewed what is required in Northern Ireland and who are trying to bring about a more balanced and reasonable approach to the Province.

Mr. Thompson: The majority of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland do not want the Bill—surely the Government should take notice of that. If the Conservative party were introducing a similar measure in Scotland, where there are no Conservative Members, there would be strong objections from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ingram: I understand that argument entirely, but I am a representative of the United Kingdom Parliament, as is the hon. Gentleman. The responsibility rests with this House. We do not have a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland—something which many of us hope will come out of the current talks—and these matters must be considered by the UK Parliament. It may or may not become a devolved issue; that is a matter for the talks participants, and then for the people of Northern Ireland.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the new clause and the associated amendments propose. Their purpose is simply to place within the Bill a

requirement on those organising protest meetings to give notice of them. I ask the question—what is wrong with that? The amendments deal with a code of practice in relation to protest meetings which is consistent with North's recommendations. Again I ask—what is wrong with that? There is no change in the law as it stands relating to the public order aspects of open-air meetings.
7.45 pm
A number of hon. Members raised similar points in different ways, and I apologise if I do not mention them all in dealing with the substantive points. Clearly, hon. Members will have an opportunity to return to these matters if necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and Ulster Unionist Members mentioned the commission in terms of processions, and the way in which protest meetings related to those processions would be dealt with by the police, and asked why these were to be dealt with differently.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Down said that the commission was not to be involved at all. Of course the commission is involved in the process, because, under new clause 3, the police are required to give notice to the commission of the fact that the organisers of a related protest meeting have given notice of such a meeting. The commission will take the behaviour of the protesters into consideration when making determinations in relation to future parades. It is wrong to imply or indicate that somehow the commission is not associated with matters relating to protest meetings.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for trying to explain this point, but the fact is that the commission will have been given notice through the police of a protest, and will have taken cognisance of the overall problem in terms of the procession and any possible protest. None the less, there is a definitive distinction, as the commission apparently cannot make a determination on the protest meetings. That is the point I was making.

Mr. Ingram: I was going to come to that, and I may have misheard my hon. Friend. I thought that he had implied or indicated that the commission was not associated at all with protest meetings.
The difference between that which relates to protest meetings and that which relates to public processions is quite clear. By their very nature, protest meetings have a tendency to become matters of public disorder. That view has been expressed. It does not happen at all protests—nor should it happen at all—but we have seen examples of it. As it is a public order issue, it should rest with those who have direct responsibility for dealing with the matter—in this case, the RUC. Of itself, it does not create a new distinction, as it is dealing with the reality of the situation.
Another fundamental issue is at stake in dealing with protest meetings. If the matter were to be given to the commission to deal with, my best judgment—after consultation with the commission—is that an incredible burden would be placed on the commission, which has to deal with a wide range of issues. We are dealing with a


difficult enough set of circumstances without giving the commission a much more contentious area to deal with. That is why we have dealt with it separately.

Mr. Öpik: If my understanding is correct, the Minister is suggesting that the commission will take account of the performance of the counter-demonstration in future assessments of the procession. If that is correct, is there not a built-in temptation for the counter-demonstration to work in such a way as to prompt the commission to rule that the procession would be unacceptably dangerous in terms of public order? That could be counter-productive, by giving the counter-demonstration an unreasonably high incentive to misbehave.

Mr. Ingram: All those things are a possibility, and the Parades Commission has been given a difficult job. As the hon. Gentleman recognised in his speech tonight and on Second Reading, we have consistently spoken about the difficult nature of the commission's job. It will not be easy to make those judgments, and in future years fine, precise decisions will have to be taken based on past years' experience.
I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was not on the Standing Committee, but we dealt with a wide range of matters relating specifically to ways in which the commission will have to deal with those complex matters. The hon. Gentleman will have had the opportunity to read the Committee Hansard—if not, I suggest that it should be his bedtime reading tonight, assuming we get home to bed tonight. I have dealt with that issue generally; if hon. Members are dissatisfied, they have the right to vote accordingly, but the judgment was based on the parameters and issues I have described.
The hon. Member for South Down implied that a requirement to give notice of protest meetings is somehow restrictive of people's civil liberties, but that requirement is no more restrictive than the notice requirement on parades and processions. We have to take into account the rights of those who wish to parade and march, and those who wish to make a peaceful and lawful protest.
There is no threat in the legislation to the latter group—that is an important aspect of the Bill. The right to peaceful and lawful process is a fundamental right of all UK citizens, but sadly we have seen examples of protests that have gone beyond that limit, for a variety of reasons. By no stretch of the imagination can the new clause be described as a denial of the fundamental right to peaceful and lawful protest.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised issues relating to subsections (2)(b) and (4)(f), and asked about the words "reasonably practicable". There is a need for flexibility in legislation, which is why those subsections appear in new clause 3. The use of the word "reasonably" precludes deliberate manipulation by protest organisers of the sort described by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
There might be circumstances in which 14 days notice is not practicable, and we could spend all night thinking of examples of that—problems with the post or other reasons. We also have to remember that parades and processions can be notified less than 28 days in advance if prior notice in their application was not practicable, either. Flexibility is built in for processions, and similar provision is required for protests.
At the end of the day, the judgment on whether those who are protesting are in breach of the legislation and whether they acted in an reasonable way will be made by the courts, if the matter is referred to them by the RUC. It will not be a matter for political judgment or intervention. It is reasonable to have those subsections in new clause 3.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about article 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Article 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to ban open-air public meetings. It has been amended by schedule 3 to the Bill, but the power continues to apply to all open-air meetings, including protest meetings. There are amendments consequential to the provisions of schedule 3, but the specific application of article 5 to open-air meetings continues.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked about the police station where notice is to be given. A meeting is "a related protest meeting" when it is to be held at a place which is in the vicinity of the route, or proposed route, of a public procession. Therefore, as new clause 3 requires notice to be given at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held, that will almost certainly be the same power station—sorry, police station: although the police have the power to take action; sometimes one cannot read notes scribbled down as points were made—as that which is nearest to the proposed starting point of the procession, but that will not necessarily be the case; hence the difference in the wording.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised points about parades being dealt with by the commission, and protests by the police. I hope that I dealt in my earlier explanation with the reasons why it is set out as it is in the Bill. I reiterate that any problems resulting from protest meetings are almost exclusively—albeit not wholly—public order-related.
By definition, a protest meeting will be held on what can be classified as home soil, so the criterion of the impact on relationships within the community would not be relevant. However, by their very nature, parades will go through areas that might be described as opposition or hostile areas, or not home territory, which is why conflict arises. Therefore, it is relevant and appropriate that that issue should be taken into account by the commission in making its determination. North came to the view that there was no practical difficulty in dealing with the issue in that way.
The hon. Member for North Antrim also spoke about spontaneous protests, and about how, for example, a trade union dispute or other public demonstration would be inhibited by the need to give notice. He is wrong in his understanding of what we are trying to achieve, because new clause 3 applies only to protest meetings relating to a public procession. A meeting for the purpose of a trade dispute or some other public protest issue would not fall foul of the notice requirement, and would not be inhibited.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: I shall first deal with one more point; then I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not in his place, made the point that the commission could not fully consider the situation


relating to a parade until it had received formal notice of a protest, and that it would have to wait until the eleventh hour until it knew of that. Without new clause 3, there would be no notice requirement for a protest meeting, so the new clause obviously improves on that which was there before. We have an improvement in the legislation, not a reining back of the legislation.
In addition, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, authorised officers, and possibly even the members of the Parades Commission, will go out into the community when a potentially contentious parade is to take place so as to see what is happening on the ground. The responsibility rests with them to try to find out what is happening, so they will probably—although it is not certain—pick up on the possibility of some protest against the procession or the parade ensuing from the application going ahead. They would have knowledge of it before the 14-day period was triggered.
However, it was judged that it was reasonable to impose a 14-day notice period, because it would give people the right to know that a procession was to go through their area, and enable them to consider whether they were agreeable to its doing so. People have the right to consider what is happening in their area and the right to lawful and peaceful protest, and those rights should not be taken from them. That right should not be removed from them.
We could debate the number of days to a standstill but there must be a balance. We have 28 days for an application for a procession, and 14 days for a protest. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Down does not hold much substance in the way in which he presented it.

8 pm

Mr. William Ross: Trade union disputes are a case in point, and trade union peace rallies are another. Those are events that we all applaud. We know what happened recently when there was a hijacking by the IRA in front of Belfast city hall. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland turned up, and was happy to beat a hasty retreat. How will the Government, the police or the Parades Commission deal with such a situation?

Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend turned up at the event to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but she did not beat a hasty retreat. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in The Newsletter. I accept, of course, that sometimes The Newsletter can be accurate.
My right hon. Friend's intention was to see the turnout. She wished to get a feel for it and then go
on—[Interruption.] I am trying to explain the background. I seem to have created some hilarity, but I understand that some honest assertions or statements are not always accepted by some members of the Ulster Unionist party. I have outlined the circumstances relating to my right hon. Friend's presence.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry talked about a trade union peace rally, but that was not a public procession. There was no need for it to comply with new clause 3, because it did not relate to a public procession. Therefore, this point has no substance.
I have tried to deal in a structured way with the many points that have been raised during the debate. Some have been raised in different ways by different hon. Members, but I have tried to condense the issues into key elements.
New clause 3 and the associated amendments represent a genuine attempt to take on board what has been said in Committee about the need to amend the Bill. The same or similar expressions were raised in another place. We are trying to achieve a balance. There was always a possibility that the Government would proceed as we have.
Although members of the Ulster Unionist party may object to the Bill in its entirety, I am glad that they recognise that movement has been made, as shown by new clause 3 and the related amendments. I hope that this movement will be of benefit to the community generally, which is involved in participating both in processions and protests and upon which protests and processions impact. The Bill will be better as a consequence of the new clause and amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

THE COMMISSION'S POWERS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

'.—(1)If the Commission, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes—

(a) that the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
(b) that the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do,

it may issue a determination imposing on the persons organising the procession such conditions as appear to it to be necessary to prevent such disorder, disruption or intimidation, including conditions as to route of the procession or prohibiting it from entering any public place.

(2) The Commission may amend or revoke any determination issued under this section.

(3) A person who knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section shall be guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose—

(a) from circumstances beyond his control; or
(b) from something done by direction of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of inspector.

(4) A person who incites another to commit an offence under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) or (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 5.
No. 3, in page 5, line 14, leave out from 'procession)' to end of line 16.

Mr. Thompson: Those who know the Bill will understand that clauses 7 to 10 represent its substance. We know, of course, that the Bill deals with important issues, such as law and order and the rights of people to process and to object. My hon. Friends and I do not accept that those matters should be decided by a commission, especially a commission that is a new quango in Northern Ireland, the members of which will be nominated by the Secretary of State. Our experience is that those who are nominated by the Secretary of State to quangos are placed to carry out the Government's business.
We believe that, as with protests, decisions on parades should be taken by the police. We believe also that when public order is at stake, it is the responsibility of the police to be involved. To seek to pass the responsibility over to an unelected lay body seems to my colleagues and me to be completely unacceptable.
The Parades Commission has been given significant powers under clause 7. They enable a determination to be made as the commission considers necessary. Guidelines provide for the commission to have regard to various factors, such as
any public disorder or damage to property which may result from the procession … any disruption to the life of the community".
Two additional paragraphs refer to the
impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community; any failure of a person of a description specified in the guidelines to comply with the Code of Conduct".
We believe that the two additional conditions are completely unacceptable. Furthermore, we believe that they are contrary to the provisions of the European convention on human rights. If the provisions were voluntary, they might be more acceptable. If the commission wishes to have guidelines and a code of conduct, that is up to it, but the idea that such provisions should be statutory and should be used to impose conditions on a parade is to us completely unacceptable.
We believe also that the Bill, in many instances, is a contravention of the European convention on human rights. In another place, the Government are putting through a measure entitled the Human Rights Bill. In the White Paper, there is a wonderful photograph of—guess who?—the Prime Minister. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says:
We believe it is right to increase individual rights".
Yet the Bill is taking away individual rights. These are the rights that are set out in the convention. Article 9 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
As the Orange institution is a religious organisation, we believe that we have every right to march the Queen's highway and to proclaim our religion in that respect.
Article 10 states:
Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers",
yet the Bill seeks to restrict the freedom of marchers to express their culture and beliefs.
We read under article 11:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Again, the right of freedom of peaceful assembly is under grave attack in the Bill.
Article 14 states:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
The Bill will give rise to instances of discrimination, because certain classes of organisation will not be required to comply with the requirement to indicate their intention to hold a parade, yet other organisations such as Orange and other institutions will be required to do so. That, we argue, is discrimination, in contravention of the European convention on human rights.
A number of human rights cases have gone through the European Court of Human Rights. Two of those cases are relevant to public order and the right of peaceful assembly. One was the case of Plattform "Arzte fur das Leben", an association of doctors that campaigned against abortion with a view to securing changes in the Austrian legislation. It complained to the court about violations of article 11. It is interesting to read about those demonstrations, because it is amazing how they compare with the situation in Northern Ireland.
We read that the applicant association decided to hold a religious service at Stadl-Paura church in upper Austria on 28 December 1980, after which there would be a march to the surgery of a doctor who carried out abortions. As required by law, it gave notice on 30 November to the police authority for the district of Wels-Land. The police made no objection and gave the participants permission to use the public highway. The police did, however, have to ban other planned demonstrations that were announced subsequently by supporters of abortion, as those demonstrations were to be held at the same time and in the same place as the Plattform demonstration.
As the organisers feared that incidents might occur none the less, they sought to change their plans in consultation with the local authority. They gave up the idea of demonstrating outside the doctor's surgery and decided instead to march to an altar erected on a hillside quite a distance away from the church, and to hold a religious ceremony there.
8.15 pm
The police representatives pointed out to the organisers that the main body of the police officers had already been deployed along the route originally planned, and that, because of the lie of the land, the new route was not suited to crowd control. They did not refuse to provide protection, but stated that, irrespective of the route chosen


or not to be chosen, it would be impossible to prevent counter-demonstrators from throwing eggs and disrupting both the march and the religious service.
During the mass, a large number of counter-demonstrators who it seems had not given the notice required under the relevant Act assembled outside the church and were not dispersed by the police. They disrupted the march to the hillside by mingling with the marchers and shouting down their recitation of the rosary. The same thing happened at the service celebrated in the open air. Some 500 people attempted to interrupt it using loudspeakers, and threw eggs and clumps of grass at the congregation.
At the end of the ceremony, when tempers had risen to the point where physical violence nearly broke out, special riot control units, which had until then been standing by without intervening, formed a cordon between the opposing groups, and that enabled the procession to return to the church.

Mr. McGrady: Harryville.

Mr. Thompson: We can see the parallel with Harryville and with Drumcree. However, to return to the case, we read that a second march was contemplated. The competent police authority gave permission for a second demonstration against abortion to be held in the cathedral square in Salzburg on 1 May 1982. An anniversary meeting was due to be held in the square by the socialist party on the same day, but it had to be cancelled because notice of it had been given after the applicant association had given notice of its meeting.
The demonstration began at 2.15 pm and ended with an hour of prayers inside the cathedral. At about 1.30 pm, some 350 people angrily shouting their opposition had passed through the three archways that provided access to the square and gathered outside the cathedral. A hundred policemen—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman citing cases in other countries, but to go into the detail of two cases that occurred in Austria is stretching the point. I do not mind a mention of those matters, but the full detail of the incidents should not be brought before the House.

Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks, but the incidents are extremely important because they relate closely to the situation in Northern Ireland.
To conclude the account of the second incident, other trouble was caused by sympathisers of an extreme right-wing party, the NDP, who voiced their support for Plattform. The police asked the association chairman to order those people to disperse, without success. In order to prevent the religious ceremony from being disrupted, the police cleared the square.
After the matter went to the court—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you will admit that my reference was at least to Northern Ireland, and not far afield.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is raising a matter of history rather than a point of order.

Mr. Thompson: The decision of the court is extremely important in establishing European law in this instance.

It is sad that we who live in Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom, must resort to European law to assert our rights, rather than being able to rely on British law, which we believed was better than European law.
Under this Government, the situation seems to have changed. Now we must appeal to the European Court. What it said was important. In its decision of 17 October 1985 on admissibility, the Commission dealt at length with the question whether article 11 implicitly required the state to protect demonstrations from those wishing to interfere with or disrupt them. It answered that question in the affirmative.
A demonstration may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. The participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents. Such a fear would be liable to deter associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial issues affecting the community. In a democracy, the right to counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate.
Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot, therefore, be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the state not to interfere: a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the object and purpose of article 11. The judgment of the court establishes the right of peaceful marching and peaceful assembly. Yet the restrictions in the Bill prevent the exercise of that right. Restrictions can be placed only on rights that are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society. We supposedly live in a democratic society.
A second court case, the Ezelin case, establishes the right of peaceful assembly. The court found:
the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly … is of such importance that it cannot be restricted in any way … so long as the person concerned does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion.
They are the rights and the privileges that we should enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and as citizens of Europe. The restrictions outlined in clause 7 contravene our liberty. It is entirely unacceptable that a person's right to march, to process and to demonstrate should be negated by
any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community".
The court cases to which I referred negate that stupid argument.
It is also argued that, if people do not follow certain conditions and guidelines established under the code of conduct, their rights will be eliminated. That is a complete negation of our rights and our liberty. That is why we oppose clause 7 and why I have proposed new clause 1—a proper clause —to replace it. If accepted by the Government, it would go a considerable way towards making the Bill more acceptable to Unionists. The clause says that the powers of the commission to apply restrictions on a parade should be similar to those which the Government have now accepted should be applied in


relation to an objecting demonstration. In other words, restrictions should be based only on public order issues. New clause 1 says:
the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
that the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do".
We believe that those conditions, which are similar to those that apply in England and Wales, should be the only ones that the commission uses when making a determination and placing restrictions on a parade.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the absolute right to process as enshrined in European law is established and confirmed, protest will be less likely?

Mr. Thompson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The problem is that the Government and police leaders have attacked those rights. That is what has caused all the trouble.
I refer also to the Human Rights Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords. Clause 19 states:
A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before the Second Reading of the Bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"—
in other words, it is a statement of compatibility
or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
This statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is reading from clause 19, but we are dealing with new clause 1. We cannot range too widely on Report.

Mr. Thompson: You misunderstand me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reading from clause 19 of the Human Rights Bill, which is at present in the House of Lords and which is relevant to the legislation that we are considering tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That makes the situation even worse. The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to new clause 1, which he has proposed. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is the Report stage. I must confine the hon. Gentleman's remarks to new clause 1.

Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to hear that I am drawing my remarks to a close.
I ask the Government: have they fulfilled the requirements of clause 19 of the Human Rights Bill in relation to this legislation? I accept that this Bill will pass through the House before the Human Rights Bill. However, if the Government are keen to enshrine people's rights in legislation, they should produce a written statement explaining, in detail, how this legislation—which is so

important to the rights of the people of Northern Ireland—complies with the European convention on human rights. I ask the Government to do that.
New clause 1, which is a substitute for clause 7 in the existing legislation, would retain the law in sympathy with the rest of the United Kingdom and would not contravene the European convention on human rights. Therefore, in the interests of peace, stability and balance, I ask the Minister to accept the new clause.

Mr. McGrady: An explanation is required of my amendment No. 3 to clause 7, since the word "procession" appears twice in line 14. The amendment applies to the second "procession": in other words, it would delete subsection (6)(e), which deals with a preference—or an intention to give preference—to processions that are customarily held along a particular route. Subsection (6) states that the guidelines of the commission shall in particular have regard to five matters, including whether a procession is customarily held along a route.
The words "customarily held" mean traditional. It will be difficult for the commission or anyone else to define traditionality. In Committee, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) gave a perfect example of the problem of traditionality. He said that the structure of the Orange Order was such that demonstrations could move around in different areas in different years. In one extreme case, a traditional parade was held every 41 or 47 years—I am not sure which. Therefore, traditionality could mean intervals of 40 or more years. No reasonable person would accept that something which has not taken place for the best part of two generations could genuinely be deemed traditional.
I hasten to add that it is desirable that as many parades as possible, excluding those which impinge on the rights of others or cause distress or public disorder, should be allowed. There is no problem about that. But traditionality should not be one of the major bases on which a decision is made.
For example, in an area which I prefer not to name in case it exacerbates the situation, a parade was taking place on several Friday nights, as they are wont to do, until 11 pm or 12 pm, and it went into a mixed estate. There were some protests, but the police, in their wisdom, said that the parade could go ahead because it was traditional. The traditional parade to which they were referring was an extension of a parade into a new housing estate where the roads were not even made up. That parade had nothing to do with traditionality. The houses had not been there 24 months before. That was about extending the dominance of the traditional parade into a new community which happened to be particularly diverse.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will say that, when the guidelines are being drawn up or reviewed, that element of traditionality will not be a major or primary factor in the decision-making process. As I have said, over four decades, the topography, demography and social structure of any given area can change. Traditionality is not only a bad basis in practice on which to make a decision but a difficult basis in terms of interpretation.

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman were a member of such organisations, he would realise how a traditional


parade could come about only every 41 years. More important, however, does he accept that, under European and British law, processions have the right to march on a public road which passes through or by a nationalist estate, even though there may be people there who do not like them or agree with them, and may object to them, provided that they do it peaceably?

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the right to march. In Committee, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who sat on the same side of the Committee as the hon. Gentleman, and who I understand is a learned gentleman, said that he thought that, under English law, there was no right to parade, simply an entitlement under the common law to do that which is not forbidden. There is no automatic right to march—a concept which Ulster Unionist Members have consistently put across. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is right in his semi-judicial assessment of the situation, but I put it forward for what it is worth.
My amendment simply asks that traditionality is not taken literally but is made subject to other matters which must impinge on any decision making. To have it as a primary and particular concern gives it a prominence which, owing to the difficulty of interpretation and explanation, could give it an undue influence in the decision making of the commission, or of the police, who deal with protest meetings rather than parades.

Mr. William Ross: I support new clause 1. It is very reasonable and will be found to be in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Human Rights Bill which will complete its passage in the other place tomorrow and then come to this House for debate and amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) read out the clear judgments of the European Court, which will override domestic law. We in the Ulster Unionist party have always opposed the concept of European law, but if the House decides to implement it, it will have to live by it. I suspect that the first Orange procession that is blocked will see the Government in court, and that will not be in the European Court, but in the domestic courts. If my understanding is correct, once the Government are found guilty, as they will be, they will find themselves having to pass through the House forthwith an Order in Council implementing the European law in that regard. If the Government are sensible enough to accept my hon. Friend's proposals and live by them, I suspect that they will never be in that unhappy position. New clause 1 is very important. It is the first of a number that my hon. Friend has tabled on the issue, and no doubt he will return later this evening to some of the matters he has raised.
New clause 1(1)(a) would make an issue of the conduct of those in the procession. It is a reasonable provision, and I believe that we would all like to see it included in the Bill. If people took part in a parade, they would have to behave themselves. No one in a loyalist order or organisation, such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, would behave in the way described in the new clause. Given that fact, the law-abiding, decent elements of Northern Ireland society could live with and, indeed, would welcome the new clause.
New clause 1(1)(b) is an equally reasonable provision and would provide an excellent back-up to the Government's new clause 3, which the House has just accepted. Ministers should have the wit to welcome the sensible proposals in new clause 1. They are a much simpler statement of what is needed to control processions in Northern Ireland and could be implemented easily by the police. The new clause makes it plain that, if people do not behave when they are on procession, that will be a good reason for ensuring that they do not return.
The Bill as it stands is far too complex. It introduces elements that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone vividly illustrated, will not stand up when the European human rights law is applied in the United Kingdom. Under the European laws, people will have the right to process, and to police and military protection when they do so. That is the point that I made in Committee: we will eventually reach a situation in which everyone will have the right to march more or less at will and to be protected while doing so.
The Government should pause and think again about the consequences of the Bill. They should consider ways in which it could be improved and made acceptable and compatible with European law. The Government could pre-empt a conflict with European law, and that would be a happy outcome of our proceedings. As the Bill stands, the Government will have to reconsider it in a year or so.
I am happy to support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone, and I hope that they find favour with the Minister. If the Minister thinks carefully about the new clause, he will realise that it is sensible and much superior to the proposals in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I rise to support new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). The Government cannot take an a la carte approach to Europe. They must either accept all that Europe says or none of it. I am not a fan of Europe, but I believe that the Government will be hoist by their own petard when the Bill to incorporate European civil rights provisions receives Royal Assent. What will happen then?
I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that the British people have no right to process. Everybody knows that common law gives people that right, and that has been argued in the courts of this land. This is not the first time that processions have been in the political arena in Ireland—or in England, especially Liverpool. It can be seen from the past that the right to march has been treated in the same way as the right to assemble and the right to free speech.
We are discussing public order issues tonight. I have already said this evening—I shall repeat the point—that the Government should have considered the public order order and dealt with the provisions in it that gave a lever to those who wanted to disrupt processions, and to disrupt them violently.
It seems entirely unfair for the authorities in Northern Ireland to tell the Portadown Orangemen that they cannot ever walk again in the Tunnel area. They have been walking to Drumcree for more than 100 years. They asked, "How do we get to it?" The authorities said, "This is the way you get to it." The Orangemen replied, "Will you guarantee us that we can get that way?" I was present. I know what I am talking about. The police


vowed that the Orangemen could go that way. Of course, when they started walking that way, the IRA decided that it would have to implement the orders of its leader, Gerry Adams, and take part in the agitation to stop the parade. The Orangemen were allowed to get to the church and were then suddenly told by the police that they would not be getting home.

Mr. Ingram: indicated dissent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not right for the Minister to say that it is untrue. That is what happened. They got to the church on the first occasion and were told that they could not get back. That is a matter of fact.

Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts were that the parade went to the church and could have gone back by the same way that it arrived without hindrance from the police or anyone else? As I understand it, it was going back by a different route that caused the problem and the counter-demonstration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The arrangement made with the police was that the parade was to go one way and come back by another. That was the original agreement that the police made. The police cannot get away from that. I sat in a meeting with the police and they admitted that that was right. Let us get the facts right without having an argument.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that the police notification document, form 11/1, specifies the route and the return. As he says, the return route shown was different from the route to the church.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Portadown is not a nationalist town. Let us get that straight. It is one of the most Protestant towns in Northern Ireland, the very heart of County Armagh Protestantism. The road is a main road. In the past 20 or 25 years, houses have been built. They have not been built on the roadside. Not one lies on the actual road. They are in estates on either side. That does not produce what people in Northern Ireland like to call a particular coloured area.
The coloured areas came in when troops first came to Northern Ireland. The troops were given maps with green and orange areas. The Ravenhill road, where I have laboured in Church work for 52 years, is not a Roman Catholic road. From the bottom right up to Rosetta, it is a Protestant road. I was walking up that road when a police officer accosted me and said, "I don't think you should be walking here, Mr. Paisley." I said, "Why?" He said, "You are in a Roman Catholic area." I said, "No. 1, what would it matter if I was? What business is it of yours? Secondly, who told you that?" He showed me his map. The right-hand side of the road was coloured dark green. He said, "This is a republican area." I said, "Go away home. You don't know what you're talking about." On both sides it is a Protestant road. Even if it had been a Roman Catholic road, surely a minister, whether a priest in the Roman Church or a Protestant, is entitled to walk there and look after people who reside there. I find that attitude disconcerting.
The houses are back from the road. There was never any attempt by Orangemen in Portadown to walk through those estates, nor would they do that. That lie was spread

all around the world. I do not know how many programmes I appeared on in the United States of America, but the first question I was always asked was whether Orangemen had walked through Roman Catholic housing estates. I was in America when a man said to me, "Of course, the Roman Catholics don't have any houses in Northern Ireland." I said, "That's interesting. They are now running a rent and rates strike, so if they don't have any houses, how can they successfully do that?" That strike was organised by the SDLP.
The Northern Ireland people, especially the Protestants, have been slandered. There is now a vicious campaign. The so-called loyalist terrorists are called Protestants—the Protestant Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force—but those people have no religion: they are the haters and revilers of religion. We never hear anyone referring to the Roman Catholic Provisional IRA. In fact, I tabled a question in the House using that expression and I was called into the office and told, "You don't use that language here." I said, "Here's one tabled by Gerry Fitt referring to the Protestant UVF. What about that?" and they said, "We'll get that off the Order Paper." A campaign is being waged to blacken the decent Protestant people of Northern Ireland. It is a scandal.
The people who walked down from Drumcree were not against their Roman Catholic neighbours. They were coming from a place of worship and were entitled to come down that road. The Bill is all about Drumcree. It is an attempt by the Government to find a way of stopping the parade. Government researchers should read the history of the Procession Acts that have littered the statute book. Where did they get us? Nowhere.
People may not want others walking down a particular road, and they may not like what those people are doing, but they just have to let them walk down that road. Hibernian processions go through almost 100 per cent. Protestant areas in my constituency and nobody says anything. Orange parades go through Rasharkin, which has a majority Roman Catholic population, and nothing is said. That is the only way that parades can be accomplished in peace.
I used to spend my holidays in a place called Killowen in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down. Killowen was strongly Roman Catholic, although there were some Protestant families. On 12 July, the Roman Catholic boys and the Protestant boys went together to see the Orangemen. On 15 August, we all went to Warrenpoint to see the Hibernians. On 12 July, the Hibernian neighbour did the farm chores and sent his Orange friend off to walk in the parade, and his friend did the same on 15 August. That is the way it was, and that is the way it needs to be. That is the only answer.
People think that they will stop an event that has been going on for hundreds of years, but it cannot be done. The sad thing is that this problem now affects church services. Mention was made of Harryville. The House should know that Harryville sits in a 99 per cent. Protestant area, yet the chapel was built there and nobody said anything about it until we had the agitation in Dunloy. Orangemen were not allowed to go to the Presbyterian church. The Presbyterian church was attacked. All the windows were broken, the graveyard was dug up and, one by one, people were driven out of the church by intimidation.
The Protestants in Harryville then decided to organise a protest there. I do not agree with banned protests; I think that protests should take place within the law, and I do not think that anyone should have to listen to curses and bad language from anyone. I believe that people should be allowed to go in peace to their place of worship. I have made my position clear in my constituency, and everyone there knows it. The point is that, outside Ballymena, in a place called Dunloy, Orangemen were not even permitted to hold a religious service in their own Orange hall because the Orange hall was occupied by IRA men. They sat on the roof and wrote the slogan "You will never use this hall again". The hall is now an IRA-Sinn Fein advice centre.
Fortunately, following a good deal of consideration, we succeeded in holding a religious service in the hall with no trouble a few weeks ago. The police were at long last prepared to do for the people of Dunloy—the Protestants—what they had done for the people of Harryville, the Roman Catholics: they were prepared to say, "You are entitled to hold your religious service, and we will look after you." That is a duty that the police must perform across the board and it is why this is and always will be a public order issue. Even the Minister said—referring to some of the remarks that I, and others, had made—that public order issues were involved in the debate about protests. The House will eventually have to look again at the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, because it has within it the seeds of what is now happening.
There was a man on the Armagh road who said, "No Orangeman will ever walk down this road again." On one side of the Armagh road, from the direction of the King's bridge, is what is known as the holy land, because all the streets have names like Jerusalem street and Jericho street. It is predominantly a Protestant area. When I went to Belfast some 49 years ago, I lived in Cooke street, which is at the bottom of the Armagh road. The Orangemen walked up and down the road, using it as a main thoroughfare. They cannot do so today, because the IRA has said—Gerard Rice has said—that they are not allowed to set foot on the Armagh road. That will gain momentum, and nothing but anarchy will result. The new clause makes reasonable proposals to deal with some of what results from unruly elements taking over in parades and in protests against parades.
At last Friday's trade union meeting, some elements sought to take over and to destroy the very purpose for which the meeting had been called. The Chair did not allow me to read out today some of the things that Roman Catholics have been saying about the way in which the IRA has treated them. All I can say is that this will not end when we pass the Bill. We must look forward to the days that lie ahead. If the House thinks that banning Drumcree this year is all that will be needed, it has another think coming. It is impossible to stop something that has gone on, with the majority of the population behind it, in a town such as Portadown, which is the centre of Protestantism. We might as well say to the people of the Bogside, "You will never walk to Free Derry corner again." What person with a titter of wit would say that? The House does not have a Canute to

stop the waves. The waves will come in and we must be reasonable and seek legislation that will at least help to reduce tension and not stir the pot.
9 pm
I say to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House that there are some things that we have to thole, and everyone in Northern Ireland has to thole processions. Those who do not agree with them need not look at them. Some processions last for only a few minutes. I am told that the Drumcree parade takes nine minutes to go along that stretch of road. If we cannot have tolerance for nine minutes, we will never have the tolerance to live together and take the actions that people say we should take together. We should look carefully at the Bill. I hope that the Government appreciate the force of the new clause.

Mr. Öpik: Estonia does not have many rules about processions, but it had sectarian problems. There was tension between the Russian and Estonian communities, and it was a miracle that it had not erupted into violence. As far as I can tell, when people from one side or the other wanted to process, they did it, made their point and that was it. My guess is that, if we transposed the entire legislation on processions in Northern Ireland to Estonia, it would not make a blind bit of difference to how people there go about their business. The same is probably true of Northern Ireland.
No matter how much legislation we produce on processions in Northern Ireland, the situation will not change much. The reason for that—as I listen to the debate I become even more persuaded of it—is that the House is trying to legislate for human nature. The more we try to legislate for circumstances and difficulties, the more it becomes a virtual certainty that those who want to will find creative solutions to enable them to circumvent the legislation.
We must be realistic. The concerns that have been expressed in the debate simply reflect the degree to which the debate is not about getting the right legislation but about getting the right attitudes, and such attitudes can come only from the participants. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made an interesting comment about freedoms and civil liberties. I have some sympathy with his proposition. His most striking comment related to clause 7(6)(c), which states that the commission should consider
any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community".
That is close to the question whether one should allow people to make statements with which one does not agree. We were taught in philosophy the saying
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
There is a danger of illiberality, of taking away that fundamental right to self-expression. However, I am not at all clear why the proposals by the hon. Member for West Tyrone would alleviate the danger of illiberal restrictions. Unreasonable people will behave unreasonably, and no matter how much we legislate, that will continue.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that, if the legislation is passed in the form that the Government want, it might have to come to the House


again next year for further improvement. It may have to come back for ever if we think that legislation will resolve the problems. We could have this debate every year if we think that debate will resolve problems. I was going to make some points on traditionality, but I think that they will come up when we discuss the next group of amendments, if we get to it.
As a result of the points that I have made, I ask the hon. Member for West Tyrone to explain why he feels that his proposals will make the situation better in Northern Ireland. The reason I ask that question was summarised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who said that the problems will not end—by implication, with the passage of the Bill. He is right, because it has to do with attitude.
Therefore, my question is: why is the hon. Member for West Tyrone confident that his proposals, with which, as I say, I have quite a lot of sympathy, will improve the difficult situation with regard to processions in Northern Ireland? If he can provide a convincing explanation to that, he will have gone a long way to explaining how we can begin to change attitudes in Northern Ireland, to remove the need for such complex legislation in the first place. However, I am sceptical.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that, in this group of amendments, there are two in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and one in the name of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). However, they are very different. Do you intend to allow separate Divisions on those two sets of propositions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I think that the answer to that is no.

Mr. Worthington: I understand the thinking behind the amendments of the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), but, given the Government's overall policy in this area, in effect, they are, as he knows, wrecking amendments. We shall therefore resist them.
The hon. Gentleman's whole case was based on the European convention on human rights, which I am pleased to hear he has discovered because it was ratified in 1950—about 48 years ago. Since a few years after that, any British citizen has had the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights and seek to have the rights in the convention brought into effect.
Since that time, it has been possible for any Unionist or Orangeman, when there have been march restrictions that they feel contravene the convention, to go to the European Court in Strasbourg and say, "We believe that the restrictions that were imposed by the Secretary of State or by the Chief Constable were in contravention of the convention." That right has been there all those years and, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been used by people of the persuasion of the hon. Member for West Tyrone.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for what he says, but I do not need a lesson on the convention. The point is that it is difficult to get redress in Strasbourg before the police re-route a parade, especially if they do so two hours before it is due to take place. The fact that someone can

get redress two or three years later is not relevant and is very costly. The question that the Minister has to answer is: has he produced a written document showing how this Bill complies with the European convention? Will he acknowledge that, when the Human Rights Bill becomes law, it will be much easier for us to get redress?

Mr. Worthington: The major reason why we are introducing the Human Rights Bill in the Lords is to make it easier for British citizens to get redress through the British courts, rather than to go to Strasbourg, but nothing in this Bill contravenes the rights of British citizens. There are no restrictions in the Bill. It introduces a different way of administering marches. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has said, whether there are more marches and parades or fewer marches and parades will depend on people's attitudes.
Nothing in the legislation is restrictionist or anti-restrictionist. It simply sets out a new framework because we and the North committee judged that the previous framework, which included the role of the police and other interested parties, was unsatisfactory. Part of the framework, to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) objects, allows for "traditionality" to be taken into consideration. That in no way alters our relationship with the European convention on human rights. That convention is not changed, and nor is our interpretation of it. At every stage, the hon. Member for West Tyrone has been free to go to Strasbourg, and he will be free to do so in future.
Obviously, we have taken legal advice—I should be interested to know whether the hon. Member for West Tyrone has done so—and we are confident that nothing in the Bill is contrary to the ECHR. It does not restrict the right to march. It simply sets out a different framework for the monitoring of marches. Whether it is more restrictionist or not will depend on the commission, just as in the past it depended on the Chief Constable or the Secretary of State at the time.

Mr. Thompson: If the Bill is so compatible with the European convention on human rights, why do not the Government publish a document explaining where it conforms to the convention, as will be required under the Human Rights Bill which is now going through the other place and which will eventually come to this place? If the Bill does not contravene the convention, why have the Government not published such a document?

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman initially asked for a statement, which I am making, to the effect that the Bill does not contravene the convention. We feel no need to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because the Bill does not restrict the right to parade. It sets out a different framework for the decisions on parades and the monitoring of competing rights. The North report referred to those competing rights—the right to parade and the right to protest.
There has never, in any sphere, been an absolute right to do anything. What exists is a general principle that has to be taken into account and given due weight. If one took one's rights to the absurd limit and said that they were unfettered rights, it would make life intolerable for other people. Everyone knows that.

Mr. Öpik: I have just two quick questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that it is rather nonsensical


to imagine that one has absolute rights, because at some point they begin to impinge on someone else's? Secondly, at the start of his comments the Minister said that he regarded the new clause as a wrecking measure. Why?

Mr. Worthington: That was an interesting intervention in that it prevented me from explaining why.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that one cannot take a case to Europe until one has exhausted all the possibilities in the courts here? It is almost impossible to take the marching issue to the courts; it is not as easy as the Minister suggests. One cannot just take a case to Europe immediately. He should be fair to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and make it clear that one has first to exhaust all the avenues here in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Worthington: What action has the hon. Gentleman—or the hon. Member for West Tyrone—taken to exhaust any legal mechanisms when they feel that their rights have been overridden?
I should like to progress—

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Worthington: In a moment. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I have been reasonable.
In Committee we had detailed discussions about—

Mr. Roger Stott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Worthington: No. That would not be fair. I have just refused to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) because I want to deal with the intervention. of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I shall give way later.
Amendment No. 13 would delete clause 7. New clause 1 would restrict the powers of the Parades Commission to impose conditions on public processions, making its powers even narrower than those currently enjoyed by the police. The current law has created a situation in which the Chief Constable felt confronted by alternative evils, as he has graphically described, putting the RUC in an invidious position. Decisions were based on public order considerations alone. That meant that the side with the largest crowd who threatened most got their way. We cannot accept that as the rule of law. People were offended by the biggest group of thugs being allowed to get their way. We had to establish a different framework.

Mr. Robert McCartney: In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), does the Minister accept that the phenomenon of violent objections to parades is relatively recent? As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has pointed out, the fons et origo was the 1987 order, which was a protester's charter. Only since 1994 has opposition to parades—Drumcree, Ormeau road and Deny—been

organised by convicted IRA men. Men convicted of the most substantial crimes organising violent protests is a recent phenomenon.

Mr. Worthington: My experience in Northern Ireland has discouraged me from any interest in history. I am interested in the present situation. That situation is unacceptable and we are trying to deal with it.

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend talked about unfettered rights a little earlier. He said that nobody has the unfettered right to do what they want in the face of the authorities' decisions on public order. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the Hansard. Those who know me know about my experience of Northern Ireland. I view the issue as a matter of public order. We are trying to ensure that people's rights are safeguarded. I remind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or is he starting a speech?

Mr. Stott: I am making an intervention. I remind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could it be an intervention, please, and not a speech?

Mr. Stott: During the miners' strike, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire prevented miners from going down the M1 to a secondary picket protest on public order grounds. I heard nothing from Northern Ireland Members about that.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am disinclined to go not only into historical studies but cross-cultural studies.
The Government are making an honest attempt to balance competing rights. We are essentially about recognising the importance of the ability to march, but not regardless of the impact on others. It is as simple as that. We cannot go back, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone would want, to an even narrower definition than that in the 1987 order. That is the order that we are trying to deal with.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington: I think that everyone in the House would recognise that the hon. Gentleman has had a fair shout.
If we accepted the new clause, we should be taking away the central thrust of the North report. As we all know, North found that legislation provided a disincentive to disorder by focusing mainly on public order factors, and he recommended that the Parades Commission should also be able to take into account the wider impact that a parade may have on relationships in the community. That is really North's most central recommendation. That is why the new clause is completely unacceptable. We must take into account the impact on the community, while recognising that there are malevolent people on both sides.
At present, the police are able to impose conditions concerning parades if they
reasonably believe that it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community".


The new clause would make the commission's task altogether more contentious. It would mean that conditions could be imposed only if the commission reasonably believes that the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder. We cannot accept that, although we recognise the thinking behind it. The hon. Gentleman believes that it is not fair that conditions should be imposed on a parade when the threat of violence comes from those opposing it rather than those taking part, but the public order issue essentially remains the same. Such a new clause would cripple the new structures and lead to endless judicial reviews.
Amendment No. 3, tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), presents the other side of the matter, and deals with the commission's powers to impose conditions. He does not believe that the traditionality of a parade is a factor that the commission should take into account. Well, we do. We believe that it is one of several significant factors that should be taken into account when weighing up whether a parade should go ahead. That is what is even-handed about the Bill. Although we understand the hon. Gentleman's point, the Bill's wording reflects the finding of the North report that
whether … a parade or a route is long-standing should be one of the points to take into account
as a feature of a parade. It is only one of the factors.
We believe that we have suggested a sensible compromise; it is about balancing rights. That is why what we have proposed should be accepted, and why we should resist the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Thompson: I very much regret that the Minister has found it impossible to accept the reasonable new clause. On his statement on the European convention on human rights, I should have thought that there was an onus on the Government to issue a statement of compatibility with human rights. Certain issues in the Bill seem to be contrary to those rights. For example,
a procession of a class or description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State
will not need to apply to the commission. I think that, under European law, the idea that one can distinguish between classes of people has now become highly suspect.
In other words, if the Salvation Army says, "We are the Salvation Army; we preach the gospel and we are good people, so we have to be exempted," and the Secretary of State says, "It's all right for you," but when the Orange Order says, "We are the Orange Order; we are a religious organisation, we owe loyalty to the Queen and we should be released from the obligation," the Secretary of State says, "No, you can't," she would be discriminating between lawful people. She would find that distinction difficult to establish in the European Court of Human Rights.
What about the situation of a person who takes part in a public procession? Again, it would be difficult to uphold a conviction in the European Court of Human Rights if a

person went along to a parade and exercised his rights, not knowing that the parade was banned.
Clause 7 refers to
any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community",
yet it is unlawful to place restrictions on a parade on the grounds that it will have some kind of adverse effect on the community. The provision could not be upheld in the Court of Human Rights, because it does away with the right to march—although I know that the Minister refuses to accept that.
The hon. Member whose constituency I do not know, who referred to the miners' strike—[Interruption.]—the hon. Member for Warrington?

Mr. Stott: Wigan. It has a better rugby team.

Mr. Thompson: I know the case that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) mentioned. There was a lot of trouble at the strike and the police were of the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me to say—[Interruption.] A public order decision—

Mr. Stott: The chief constable had people stopped on the motorway.

Mr. Thompson: Correct. I understand the situation. The chief constable understood that there was trouble there, and he stopped miners going in a van—

Mr. Stott: No, no trouble. They were going down to picket—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have continual interruptions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Thompson: I understand that people going to increase the numbers at the protest were stopped by the police and turned back. That was a new situation in British law.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: No, it was not.

Mr. Thompson: A lot of people did not agree with what happened. However, it is now established in law.
The restrictions in the Bill are even wider than that. That is why we believe that the provisions should be removed and replaced by my new clause. The Minister said that the restrictions there were less than those under the existing order of 1987, but that is not true; they are exactly the same. There is no diminution, and they relate to public order issues alone. That is the way that things should be under European law.
Therefore, I believe that it is right for the Government to accept the new clause. The Minister says that, if it were accepted, it would destroy the Bill. That is not correct, either, because the commission would still be there and would still be able to give advice and guidelines. The only restriction would be that it could not use the guidelines, restrictions or codes of conduct in a determination against


a parade. That should be accepted, and would go a long way to mitigate many of our objections to the Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider on that important issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the motion?

Mr. Thompson: No. I wish to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 287.

Division No. 149]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Thompson, William


Forsythe, Clifford
Trimble, Rt Hon David



Walker, Cecil


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

PROHIBITION ORDERS

'.—(1) If at any time the Secretary of State is of the opinion in consequence of information furnished to him by the Chief Constable. that the determination by the Commission under section 7(1) or the determination amended by the Secretary of State under section 8(2) will not be sufficient to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation as referred to in section 7, he may make an order—

(a) prohibiting for such period not exceeding 28 days as may be specified in the order, the holding in that area or place of all public processions or such classes of public procession as may be so specified; or
(b) permitting the holding in an area or place of a public procession specified in the order and prohibiting, for such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the order, the holding in that area or place of any other public procession or of any class of procession specified in the order.

(2) Wherever practicable the Secretary of State shall before making an order under the section consult—

(a) the Commission; and
(b) the Committee of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland constituted under paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1 to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

but nothing in this subsection shall affect the validity of any such order.

(3) The power to make an order under this section includes power to revoke or amend any such order.

(4) An order made under subsection (1) has effect to revoke any previous determination made by the Commission under that section in relation to any public procession the holding of which is prohibited by the order.

(5) A person who organises or takes part in a public procession the holding of which he knows is prohibited by an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisotiment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Thompson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: New clause 4—

Secretary of State's powers to prohibit non-traditional public processions.—
'If, in the case of any proposed non-traditional public procession, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, having regard to—

(a) any serious public disorder or serious damage to property which may result from the procession;
(b) any serious disruption to the life of the community which the procession may cause;
(c) any serious impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community; and
(d) any undue demands which the procession may cause to be made on the police or military forces;

it is necessary in the public interest to do so, he may by order prohibit the holding of that procession.'.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert 'new'.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 10, page 6, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 on page 7.

Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 16, after 'proposed', insert 'new'.

Amendment No. 12, in clause 16, page 11, line 2, after 'conveyances', insert
'new public procession" means a procession which has not been held for more than 10 years over the route proposed except where it is held as part of a long route of processions.'.

Amendment No. 41, in page 11, line 2, after 'conveyances', insert
non traditional public procession" means a procession which has been held for less than 10 successive years on the route proposed except where it takes place as part of a rota of processions which cover a number of different routes.'.

Mr. Thompson: The new clause is a replacement provision for clause 10, which deals with the Secretary of State's powers in relation to parades. It is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are numerous conversations taking place in the Chamber. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to continue their conversations outside the Chamber or to take their seats.

Mr. Thompson: As I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clause 10 relates to the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to public processions. In the existing clause the Secretary of State has been given extreme powers to enable her or him to ban a single parade or a group of parades, and to impose a ban for a certain period. The criteria which the Secretary of State can use to ban parades are much wider than they had been previously. In other words, the Secretary of State can consider
any serious impact which such processions may have on relationships within the community
and
any undue demands which such procession may cause to be made on the police or military".
The Secretary of State can proceed if in her or his opinion action should be taken. Under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the powers of the Secretary of State are not so extensive. Under that


provision, a Secretary of State could not ban a single parade. He or she could do that only, mainly, at the request of the chief of police. That being so, the Secretary of State was somewhat limited. There has been only one occasion under the 1987 order where a Secretary of State has so acted.
We believe that the powers that the clause gives to the Secretary of State are, to some extent, dictatorial. They are extensive, and we believe that they are not completely necessary. That is why I have tabled the new clause. If accepted, it would restore, to some extent, the powers of the Secretary of State as they exist under the 1987 measure.
The Secretary of State should be able to ban parades only on public order grounds. In dealing with objectors, the Secretary of State would be restricted, as she now is under the 1987 order. That would restore compatibility and parity, and would prevent the criticism that would be made against any Secretary of State that, if she banned a particular parade, it would be as a result of political, rather than public order, considerations.

Mr. William Ross: Will it be possible, Mr. Lord, to vote separately on new clause 4 and some of the amendments? As you see, new clause 4 was tabled by me, whereas new clause 2 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). He has explained to the House the reasoning behind his new clause, which is quite different from mine.
New clause 4 attempts to separate out non-traditional public processions, and I have kindly provided two possible ways of determining what a non-traditional or a new public procession is. I prefer amendment No. 41, which arose as a result of further information that came to light a day or so after amendment No. 12 had been tabled.
The last words of amendment No. 12,
a long route of processions",
contain a typographical error, and should read
a long route of processions".
It is intended to define a new parade as one that has simply been created, whereas a traditional parade is one that has been held for more than 10 successive years, except where it was held as one of a long rota of processions over different routes.
That takes care of the cycle of events run by the Orange institution in various parts of the Province, and by other organisations, such as the Black institution, the Apprentice Boys, whose processions are few in number, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians. There are other organisations such as the Foresters that may follow the same general principles, although I cannot speak for them. For that reason, I am especially anxious that the amendment should be considered as a separate item from my hon. Friend's new clause 2.
My hon. Friends intended new clause 1 to apply to all processions. New clause 4 is analogous, as it covers new or non-traditional processions. It is a difficult issue that has not been properly addressed, and this is a way in which it could be addressed.
The Minister was not wholly convinced by what we said about the issue in Committee, and he was rather scathing about the fact that some of our amendments did

not advance the case. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 introduce the concept that the Secretary of State should look only at new processions. I believe that new processions should be subject to more scrutiny than the long-standing processions that have been held for many years without causing any problems.
At the weekend, I spoke to a senior police officer in my constituency who pointed out that bands that practise marching on the road are legally required to submit 11/1 forms. Some bands do that, but some do not. The 11/1 form provides protection for the bands, but they do not do any harm, and usually march on roads near the halls where they train. There is nothing worse than seeing marching bands whose members appear to have three left feet. We want to teach our band members to march properly, and we cannot do that in a hall: bands must practise on the road, with band members carrying their instruments and playing as they march.
Under the existing legislation, every band training session is a procession. Therefore, band sessions account for many of the so-called processions and parades that occur every year. Some bands never bother to apply for 11/1 forms, but all bands will have to do that when this legislation starts to bite. Instead of 3,000 processions, we shall be presented with a grossly inflated figure that does not reflect what is happening on the ground. [Interruption.]
The Government should consider that point. If every band—some of which hold training sessions at fairly short notice—must submit an 11/1 form to the police, it will not be long before—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are numerous conversations going on in the Chamber. I remind hon. Members that they should be listening to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who is on his feet.

Mr. Ross: We are well aware that hon. Members often do not listen to us. On the many occasions that they have not listened to us, they have seen the legislation end in tears—which is what will happen in this case. I hope that hon. Members will learn to listen to us before we are much older and the situation has worsened.
The proper legal process regarding processions is not fully complied with at present: bands train by simply marching down the road. If every band must submit an 11/1 form for every training session—and there will be hundreds every week—it will not be long before the police commissioner will be able to paper not only his office but police headquarters with 11/1 forms.
That is only one nonsensical aspect of the Bill. Thousands of processions of various types are held every year in Northern Ireland without the slightest sign of trouble. Therefore, I believe that only new processions should come within the ambit of the legislation. We require the definition of a new procession—or perhaps "non-traditional" procession is a better term. That is why we have tabled our amendments.
As I have said, amendments Nos. 12 and 41 offer the Minister two versions of the same thing—so he can choose whichever he wants. I hope that he will choose one of them, and act upon it. New clause 4 addresses the concept of non-traditional public processions so that the Secretary of State may take action in that regard.
The reason I say that the Secretary of State can take action is that these processions will arise as a result of Sinn Fein-IRA trying to step up the pressure in the coming weeks and months. They will get on the bandwagon too, so action will need to be taken swiftly.
Our first debate this evening concerned the Government's attempt to deal with protest demonstrations— the sit-down demonstrations. We have already been told that there are other ways of dealing with other processions; that they should all come under the Bill. I believe that the non-traditional ones need a sharper treatment, and a quicker way in which to deal with them.
In some ways, the non-traditional public procession that I outline in new clause 4, in conjunction with that which the House has already accepted in the Government's first group of amendments, would strengthen the legislation for the benefit of the law-abiding, and make life somewhat more difficult for the ungodly, as I always term them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give careful attention to what I have said and am trying to do in new clause 4 and the amendments which are grouped with it in my name, which are different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone, so I hope that we shall be able to have a separate vote on them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to consider a separate vote on new clause 4 when we have seen how the debate goes.

Mr. Öpik: The question of traditionality causes me some concern, because it raises the valid issue of special status. Surely the real issue is one of public order and other rights. I recognise that there is a genuine debate to be had here, but the important question is whether a procession is acceptable and unprovocative, or not so provocative as to cause danger.
Having lived in Northern Ireland, it seems to me that traditional marches have generally ploughed their own furrow, and tend to be accepted in a way which new processions may not be. However, that is more of an observation than a reason for allowing a procession to proceed.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the inherent points about traditionality is that, if something has been done for 150 years by our fathers and grandfathers, although logically it may not matter, the truth is that the removal of such marches engenders the greatest possible opposition? Therefore, if the object of the Bill is to lessen community confrontation, traditionality must be taken on board.

Mr. Öpik: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, traditionality is not the reason for adopting the path he suggests: rather, it is everything else that is associated with the march—for example, its symbolic importance, the fact that it has been held repeatedly, possibly with no trouble, and the skill with which it has been organised. Those are the kind of matters that the commission should consider. The word "tradition" is simply a shorthand for all the things that we might associate with a well-run, long-standing event.
Therefore, I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's point, at least from the empirical standpoint of allowing many of those traditional marches—perhaps all of them—

to carry on. I am simply concerned that we are tying ourselves to the word "traditional", which is a shorthand way of describing the seven or eight key factors which really matter to the marches we are considering.
I should prefer us not to tie ourselves to the word "traditional", but to look behind that at all the things that the commission should consider. There is also the slight danger that, if we ascribe importance to the words "traditional" and "non-traditional", we open up a whole new front of conflict and debate as people seek to ascribe some extra status to their marches. That is not helpful in trying to be objective, in the interests of maintaining public order.

Mr. Ingram: We have two different debates taking place on new clauses 2 and 4 and the consequential amendments. The new clauses would make radical changes to the provisions currently in clause 10. Clause 10 as it stands sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to prohibit parades. The Secretary of State already has, of course, power in the public order order to prohibit parades, but this power, as with the police's powers to set conditions on parades, may be exercised only on the basis of criteria that are exclusively related to public order.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that he had received the impression that Ministers were not listening to what he had said about the Bill and its ramifications. If he believes that, he cannot have been listening to the debates in the other place, in Committee and tonight. As I explained earlier, substantial changes have been made following the input of noble Lords and of hon. Members in Committee. We have not only listened, but we have absorbed the arguments and modified the legislation to meet some of the concerns and issues that have been raised on both sides of the House.
In line with the recommendations of the North report in paragraph 15 of chapter 14, clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to prohibit parades, taking into account a range of factors that include the new factor of the impact of the parade on relationships within the community, as well as the existing public order factors. A further change from the existing law is that the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 10 are now proportionate. That is to say, if the problems can be addressed by prohibiting an individual parade, that is what the Secretary of State will do. It would only be in circumstances in which the banning of an individual parade did not resolve the problem that the Secretary of State would move to ban all parades of a particular type, or indeed all parades.
A further significant change is, of course, that the maximum period for which parades may be banned under clause 10 is 28 days, which contrasts with three months


under the existing law. It is worth recalling that, in 1970, under the old Stormont Parliament, which was of course under Unionist control, the Minister for Home Affairs imposed a blanket ban for a period of six months. That was a much more draconian approach than that allowed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 14, tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), would delete clause 10, on the Secretary of State's banning power, and new clause 2 would restructure that power. It is very similar to one tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, and we have already rehearsed the arguments elsewhere. This is a good opportunity to clear up some of the points the hon. Gentleman made in Committee, where we seemed to be at odds at times in trying to understand the issues at stake.
First, let me make it clear what new clause 2 would do. It would amount to a significant curtailment of the Secretary of State's banning power under the public order order. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were seeking to expand the Secretary of State's power in clause 10. I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now. The banning power in the Bill is different, but it is not fundamentally broader. His new clause would make bans much more difficult to impose. That may be his intention.
In the first place, new clause 2 would allow the Secretary of State to impose a ban only
in consequence of information furnished to him by the Chief Constable".
In the public order order, a ban can be imposed in consequence of such information
or for any other reason".
The Secretary of State is not constrained in existing legislation to impose bans only on the basis of the Chief Constable's information. That is not to say that the Secretary of State would make decisions off her own bat without consulting the Chief Constable, but the flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances needs to be there.
During the drafting of the Bill, I considered whether there was a need for a reference to consulting the Chief Constable, as set out in clause 10. It seemed so straightforward and obvious that the Secretary of State would be in constant touch that it seemed superfluous to mention it in the Bill. However, discussion in Committee set out a different perspective. It is obvious that we were wise to make it clear in the Bill that we envisaged consultation with the Chief Constable. At times, the hon. Member for West Tyrone seemed to suggest in Committee that the Secretary of State would impose bans with no reference at all to the Chief Constable. That would be nonsense.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No, the hon. Gentleman has only recently entered the Chamber. I might give way to him when he has absorbed some of the debate. We have had an extensive debate; he may find it worth while to listen to some of the arguments that are being advanced.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Minister's implication, I have been engaged in what is known as the talks process—in case he is not aware of it—and have recently arrived in the House to contribute what I can to this debate. I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Ingram: I was not implying that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was not engaged in important business, but I was saying that it would be worth his while to pick up the flow of the debate rather than immediately trying to intervene. I was trying to be helpful, not insulting.
We are dealing with the notion that the Secretary of State would not consult her main security adviser before making decisions. That argument is the import of new clause 2, and it is nonsense. That is why the Bill provides for such consultation.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the power given to the Secretary of State to ban a single parade is additional to what she had under the 1987 order? Will he explain why, if she would normally consult the Chief Constable, it cannot be put in the Bill as it is in the 1987 order?

Mr. Ingram: I was going to come to that aspect of new clause 2. I shall discuss the basis of the powers that now exist, because there are inherent contradictions between the hon. Gentleman's new clause and that of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. It might be worth setting out the detail of what they are trying to achieve in them.
I have dealt with the consultation aspect, but new clause 2 would also restrict the basis on which the Secretary of State could ban processions to factors that are exclusively public order related. That ignores the fundamental recommendation of the North report, that the factors that should be taken into account in imposing both conditions and bans should be expanded to cover the wider impact that the parade may have on relationships within the community.
The Government are completely committed to that core recommendation of the North report. We would not have established the commission in the first place had we believed that the criteria in the public order order were adequate. We set up the commission not as a snub to the RUC, but because we believed that the RUC is put in a difficult position under the current legislation, and that it would not be best placed to judge the community relations issues that the commission will need to assess.
As well as differing from the existing powers in the public order order, new clause 2 is also very different from clause 10 of the Bill. Specifically, it was suggested in Committee that the power to ban individual parades by the Secretary of State was wrong-headed and vulnerable to political interference. Accordingly, new clause 2 retains only the power to ban all parades or parades in specified classes, as in the existing public order order.
I must admit that I found that argument and that reasoning hard to understand in Committee, and I have not found anything to dissuade me from that impression. The power to ban all parades in a given area over a period or to ban whole classes of parades seems to me to be more extensive than the power to ban individual parades.

Mr. Thompson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. We are trying to introduce some form of proportionality into the banning powers. The power to ban in certain areas or to ban certain classes of parade could have been drafted in such a way as to affect only one particular parade if the Secretary of State had been so minded.
The suggestion that giving a specific power to ban individual parades somehow extends the Secretary of State's power is entirely misplaced. I note that new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, would give the Secretary of State the power to ban only individual parades, rather than whole categories. Presumably, he does not believe that the power is as draconian as the hon. Member for West Tyrone seems to think. That is where the contradiction between the two new clauses comes into play.
The provisions of new clause 4 are totally incompatible with those of new clause 2. I find it rather strange that the hon. Members do not seem to be speaking with one voice on this aspect of the legislation. It is perhaps a case of Unionism disunited.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry's new clause 4 seeks to exempt traditional parades from the banning power. That was discussed in detail in Committee, and has been discussed in passing tonight. It would be wrong to go over that ground again: it was given an extensive airing in Committee, and I do not think that much is to be gained from covering it again.
I do not think that it would be acceptable to the European Court of Human Rights or responsible on the part of Government to treat parades radically differently, as suggested. We all know that some serious trouble has been associated with what are undoubtedly traditional parades. It would be wrong to prejudge the issue or the merit of those parades. Stripping the Secretary of State of her last resort power to ban such parades would be irresponsible, and contrary to the recommendation of the North report.
The banning power has been used very sparingly in the past: in fact, only once under the 1987 order. We expect that to remain the case in the future. We are determined that, should it ever be necessary to use the power, the Secretary of State should impose the minimum possible restriction on these important civil liberties. An ascending scale of banning powers from individual parades, to classes of parades and to all parades seems sensible in that context. That is what I mean by the proportionality principles laid down in clause 10.
The two new clauses are substantial in their own right.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: I am coming to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman had a fair go at explaining his position.
The way in which clause 10 proposes to deal with banning powers is clearly consistent with the North report. It is important that the range of factors that must be taken into account remain in the Bill; I do not think that any change would improve it.
Throughout our proceedings, we have demonstrated our readiness to take on board reasoned and reasonable arguments, but I do not think that those who have spoken to the new clauses and amendments have advanced reasoned or reasonable arguments. I therefore ask the House to reject their proposals.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister spoke at some length. The argument that allowing the Secretary of State to ban a single parade does not represent a new power is Machiavellian: if the Secretary of State did not have the power before and now has it, it must be an additional power.

Mr. Ingram: I think I said that it was an additional power.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why he resists the concept of a proportionate approach to the banning power, starting with single parades and proceeding to clashes and worse?

Mr. Thompson: If the Minister looks at the legislation applying to England and Wales—and, indeed, the White Paper that dealt with the legislation relating to the 1987 order—he will find that that was one of the suggestions turned down by the eminent people who were members of a commission on public order. It was turned down because it meant that the then Secretary of State would leave himself wide open to a charge of political intervention—to the charge that he was banning a parade only on the basis of political considerations.
No doubt any future Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who bans a single parade can be well assured of being open to the charge that he did it for political reasons. That is why the suggestion was rejected in England and Wales, and that is why it has never been part of the legislation of those countries—or, indeed, Northern Ireland. Clause 10 brings the power to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and, moreover, widens the criteria enabling her to take such action. The North report did not recommend giving the power to the Secretary of State; it recommended that no change should be made, other than the introduction of the additional criteria for the judgment of parades.
Under the clause, the Secretary of State can ban a parade without consulting the Chief Constable. It is necessary for her to consult the Chief Constable only "where practicable". A Secretary of State with a certain whim and fancy could, if he or she did not approve of a parade, ban that parade. That is an exact interpretation of


the clause. My new clause would prevent that: it would keep the Secretary of State's powers in line with those that exist here in London.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 267.

Division No. 149]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Thompson, William


Forsythe, Clifford
Trimble, Rt Hon David



Walker, Cecil


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Alexander, Douglas
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Iain


Atherton, Ms Candy
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Cooper, Yvette


Austin, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Baker, Norman
Cousins, Jim


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Boateng, Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byers, Stephen
Drown, Ms Julia


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ennis, Jeff


Casale, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Cawsey, Ian
Fatchett, Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chidgey, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Church, Ms Judith
Flint, Caroline


Clapham, Michael
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Don (Bath)



Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gardiner, Barry





George, Andrew (St Ives)
Marek, Dr John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godman, Norman A
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grant, Bernie
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Merron, Gillian


Grogan, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hepburn, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Heppell, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hill, Keith
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Mountford, Kali


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Öpik, Lembit


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn



Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rendel, David


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kelly, Ms Ruth



Kemp, Fraser
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Kingham, Ms Tess
Roy, Frank


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Livsey, Richard
Sawford, Phil


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, Jonathan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGrady, Eddie
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWilliam, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, Clive






Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Spellar, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Steinberg, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stevenson, George
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Webb, Steve


Stinchcombe, Paul
White, Brian


Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Todd, Mark
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Division No. 150]
[10.19 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Forsythe, Clifford
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David



Walker, Cecil


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Ken Maginnis and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Rev. Martin Smyth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 1, line 16, at end insert 'and protest meetings'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'mediate, or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'mediate' to 'between'.

Mr. Ingram: As was pointed out in Committee, clause 2 does not impose a duty on the commission to mediate; it simply empowers it to do so. As drafted, the Bill would give the commission the flexibility to act as it believes most appropriate in the circumstances. However, many people have made representations on this point and believe that the mediation function is incompatible with the adjudicatory function.
I do not believe that the commission would in practice be faced with conflicting duties in this regard. In fact, the commission would only—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation, in front of the Chair and behind it.

Mr. Ingram: I do not believe that the commission would be faced with conflicting duties. It would have only a power, not a duty, to mediate. It could choose not to do so if it considered that there would be difficulty.
I have had to recognise the strong counter-view that the same body should not mediate and have responsibility for issuing determinations. I have given that further thought. Government amendment No. 16 deletes the references to direct mediation, while leaving the power to facilitate mediation.
That is another example of our approach to the Bill. There are competing arguments on specific issues. As I have said in earlier debates, sometimes it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion because of the strength of the arguments on both sides. I hold to the arguments that I advanced in Committee, but I respect the strong views that others have expressed. That is why we have tabled Government amendment No. 16 to delete the references to direct mediation.
Facilitating local agreements is the way forward. I hope that those who have influence to bring to bear on the way in which the Parades Commission will operate agree that it should do everything in its power to pursue that aim. The Parades Commission will learn from last year's experience and that to be gained in the coming marching

season and future years. The amended power will still be flexible enough for the commission to put what it regards as best practice into operation.
Amendment No. 33, to which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will undoubtedly speak, would have the opposite effect. It would give the commission the power only to mediate directly. It could not facilitate mediation through whatever means it thought best. Its time would be taken up by mediating between the parties. I am not sure that there would be enough commissioners to get through all the work if that responsibility were imposed. The hon. Gentleman will set out his arguments, but I felt it important to define what I understand to be the purpose and impact of the amendment.
We have tried to give the commission the flexibility to facilitate and encourage mediation. Mediation leading to local accommodation is a key to the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to support amendment No. 16.

Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has said, the amendments contradict each other. I hope that we shall have two Divisions on them, because they represent two different approaches. The Minister told us a moment ago that the Government find it difficult to come to firm conclusions. That is evident. They have written the Bill ambiguously so that, on almost any provision, one can come to several different conclusions. Sadly, they come to the wrong one far too often. We who have had experience of running processions—and who will, no doubt, have further experience of it—know how much more difficult the work will be.
When I saw the Minister's amendment, I thought back to the long debate that we had in Committee on the rights of the commissioners and said to myself, "Good heavens! There has been another typing error. The Minister has taken out the wrong bit. I shall be helpful to the poor chap and take out the right bit." When I came here this evening, I found that, lo and behold, the Government have not made a mistake but have acted with malice aforethought. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
Perhaps we should explore the matter. We have been told by all and sundry that there are only 12, 15, 20 or a maximum of 30 or so commissioners—we hear all sorts of figures—but that there will be only a tiny number of processions where there is be any trouble. Now we are told that there will be so many decisions to make, so many problems to settle, that the commissioners will not have time for them all. Will the Government make up their mind? Are there 10 or 20 or 30 commissioners—or as many as the IRA will manufacture? The Government—not by their words but by their actions—have come down on our side of the argument. They are by their action admitting that we are right—that the IRA will ensure that there are more confrontations this year.
We are making progress, albeit slowly. It takes time to convert these people to the truth, to let the light of knowledge shine through. We are doing our best. It has been a long, hard slog, but we are getting there. It might yet take another go or two at this legislation before it is founded on fact rather than myth and nonsense, but we will get there.
One might say that the commissioners are the greatest of the great and the best of the good. The countryside, the whole nation, has been searched. It has been necessary to come across to Great Britain to get someone impartial


enough and with enough experience of processions to chair the commission. The Government are saying that those people will be put in an ivory tower. From there, the commissioners will send their carefully selected minions into the country to do we know not what we know not how.
The Minister is asking us to accept that the commissioners should be let off the hook completely and allowed to live in a remote ivory tower, never to come down to the ground, never to play an active part, never to meet the citizens, never to meet Mr. Rice and Mr. McKenna—no, that would never do. Let the minions do it; let somebody else take the brickbats; let somebody else take the insults. Three, four, five, six or seven commissioners will sit in their ivory tower and make decisions on the basis of what is carried back to them by people who will be suspected—certainly by the Unionist population, and if the past is anything to go by. almost certainly by the IRA-Sinn Fein population with whom they are dealing.
The Government have got it completely, utterly and monumentally wrong. We should go in totally the opposite direction, and say to the commissioners, "You have taken on this job. We are paying you a very considerable salary for a few weeks' work every year. The Government have been telling us up to now that there are only 15 or 20 hot spots." They can start the day after Her Majesty's signature goes on the Bill. They can go now to Mr. Rice and Mr. McKenna, or Mr. Hasson and Mr. Smith in Bellaghy. They can go to all sorts of places. All the individuals who are going to raise problems are known.
If the Government and all the great and good in Northern Ireland are to be believed, they would have the whole thing wrapped up in a month. It would be no problem at all. They would have a wonderful agreement, because the IRA are just dying to reach an agreement with them.
Of course, nobody believes the Government and the great and the good. If folk take on a job and get paid for it, they should blooming well do it. I see no reason why we should let those people off the hook. The Government should say to the commissioners, "Away you go, boys. There's the job we've given you. Go and get at it. Go and find a sensible conclusion as soon as possible."

Mr. Ingram: Does the hon. Gentleman respect the views and opinions of Roy Magee?

Mr. Ross: The Rev. Roy Magee resigned. Has the Minister managed to replace him yet—and replace him with an individual who is acceptable to the Unionist and loyalist community, as Roy Magee was? If not, why not?

Mr. Ingram: What is the hon. Gentleman's answer?

Mr. Ross: I do respect the opinions of Roy Magee, but I think that his feet told the story rather better than his words.

Mr. Ingram: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Roy Magee, whom he respects, took a view completely

different from his on the point at issue? Of course, there was the difference between mediation and adjudication. He felt that he had a more specific role to play in mediation, and did not see his role as that of an adjudicator. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, Roy Magee saw a differentiation of powers.

Mr. Ross: If I recall correctly, Roy Magee saw his role as that of a mediator. Yet the Government are now taking that mediation role away from the commission and putting it into the hands of others. Roy Magee resigned over that issue. Have the Government managed to replace him yet with a man of similar standing. If not, why not? Are they really finding it so difficult?
I would be grateful if the Minister would answer. I am prepared to give way to him again. I have all night; I am not in a hurry to go home. As you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, once I get my teeth into something I do not mind how late I stay up. It does not worry me in the slightest. I could happily stay here until tomorrow night.

Mr. Robert McCartney: One hesitates to make remarks, but the name of the Rev. Roy Magee has been put into the melting pot here by the Minister, and it is right to say that that person does not enjoy universal regard throughout the pro-Union community. Moreover, does the hon. Gentleman accept that that there is a suggestion that the reason why the Rev. Roy Magee withdrew is that he did not wish to be placed in the position of adjudicator rather than mediator, because the last thing that he wanted to do was to show which way he would move?

Mr. Ross: That is the very point that I was making, and also the point of my amendment. The commissioners would be mediators. Of course I know that Roy Magee did not enjoy universal acclaim. My hon. and reverend Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) does not enjoy universal acclaim, either, and neither does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—or, indeed, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
No one else in the House enjoys universal claim within his or her own community, either, and we all know it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept the fact that some of us live our lives mindful of the injunction, "Woe unto me when all men speak well of me"?

Mr. Ross: I have to tell my hon. and reverend Friend that that is one of the reasons that brought us here. We are here because we speak our minds—because we believe in something and we are prepared to defend it in this place and to express our views wherever we may be.
That is why I believe that, if the commissioners are able to do their job, they should be prepared to go and express their views, and to use their tremendous negotiating skills to get agreement on the ground. Heavens above; that is why we are employing those chaps—and ladies. The lady in the group may have been able to persuade the SDLP to elect her as chairman of the constituency association of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), but I do not think that she would enjoy universal acclaim as an independent individual among the Unionist population.
I expect that Government Members will defend that lady again, but if we were talking about the chairman of my constituency association, I know who would be screeching their heads off whenever that person's name appeared as a member of the Parades Commission.
Let us be clear about the fact that people who are deeply politically involved are unlikely to have any standing. Only those few people who have not been deeply politically involved and have built up a rapport across the community might possibly find themselves acceptable. Even those people could find their acceptability evaporating like snow on a June day whenever they started actively trying to negotiate with the groups on the road.
That is the crux of the whole matter; it is supposed that we are dealing with some mild difference of opinion, whereas we know that we are dealing with war, murder and violence, and with men and women who are prepared to engage in violence. If some hon. Ladies think that I am being harsh on their gender, they should remember how the guns got into the Maze prison to kill Billy Wright and how the clothes got in to get Mr. Averill out. They were not carried in by men, as I am sure will eventually be proven.
I am very disappointed that the Government are taking this attitude, and that they cannot see that the men of the quality that they need for the job should be able to combine education with mediation. Those involved should have the guts to issue determinations in the light of their personal experiences and of conversations on the ground in which they can see the body language of the people they are dealing with—in which they can look into their eyes and so reach a clear understanding of the sort of people they are. They will then have a clear understanding of what they are about and what the decision should be.
The Government are sending the minions out. They are trawling around the country, through the mediation network, trying to find individuals whom they can send out to take decisions and report back. There is nothing like the personal touch or touchy-feely politics in a case like this, and the Government should start practising that. Let us get them down on the ground and see what can be done. The Minister should withdraw his foolish amendment and accept mine. If he did that, he would find that he had a far happier group of Ulster Unionist Members.

Mr. McGrady: I support amendment No. 16. I am glad that the Government have been convinced by the argument in favour of the amendment, which is identical to one I tabled in Committee. The reasons are fairly fundamental. It is a proper attempt—an attempt that has been endorsed by those engaged in the process and in the commission in the north—to ensure that there should be a divide between mediation and decision making. That does not mean that all the contacts, information and influences of mediation should not impinge on the decision makers; it is important that there is a division between the mediator and the decision maker, as it would facilitate the difficult role of the mediator if he or she were not seen to be making the decision. This is a reasonable proposal to facilitate the mediation process and the determination process.
Much has been said of the reverend gentleman who withdrew from the commission. My recollection of his reasoning is clear. He saw his role as a mediator, a

go-between and a facilitator in the accommodation of opinions. He did not think that that should be linked with a decision-making role or with the determination of conditions. This is a logical, proper and facilitating amendment which would add flexibility to the work of the commission in, hopefully, achieving mediation, and decision making based on that mediation, on all occasions.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I believe that the issue at the centre of the amendment is the crucial issue in terms of the whole Bill.
There are few people in Northern Ireland or outside who, when looking at the disruption surrounding some parades over the past few years, do not recognise that some change was necessary to the general position regarding parades. In most circumstances, if there was a genuine and realistic reason why there should be some modification of a route, the organisers of any parade would look at the proposal and consider whether it would be sensitive to modify the route. For example, I have been involved in parades that were voluntarily rerouted because there had been a death along the route. If there are genuine reasons, organisers are genuinely prepared to make changes.
However, in recent years—the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) identified the past couple of years—there has been a change in the attitude toward parades. There has been a distinct heightening of opposition to certain Orange and other loyalist parades, which has been politically motivated. As soon as there is a politically motivated attack on parades, which is seen as an attack on Orange, Protestant, loyalist, Unionist culture—whatever one wants to call it—the organisers, instead of being generous and prepared to make some sensitive modification to their proposals, dig in their heels. They do so because they recognise that a politically motivated attack is being made on their organisation.
In the present circumstances, the organisers can be in no doubt of that motivation, because the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA, Gerry Adams, was shown by the broadcasting company in the Republic of Ireland boasting that his organisation had been working for several years to bring about the disruption we have witnessed around the parades. The organisers see the whole issue of concerned residents and disruption of parades as an attack on their political philosophy and way of life.
The issue is, in such circumstances, what is it appropriate for the Government to do? The Government—not the present Government, but the Government of the day—commenced by indicating that it would be appropriate to have a commission. Its role was essentially to be one of mediation: its key function was to talk to the various sides, determine how genuine their arguments were and attempt to find a way through. Over the past few years, in some small areas, the mediation that the commission carried out before the new powers were made available to it worked. In one area, Roy Magee himself acted as a mediator and succeeded in overcoming some difficulties. The previous Government recognised that there was an important role of mediation that could be done.
The commission's role has been moved away from mediation towards adjudication—towards confusing people and blurring the edges about who is responsible


for decisions to such an extent that, despite the Government's hope that the Bill will make a helpful contribution toward alleviating problems relating to parades, the exact opposite will occur. When responsibility is blurred and more confusion and complication is injected into the issue of parades, the consequences in the streets of Northern Ireland can be devastating and have the potential to lead to injury and death.
The Government have not recognised that, at the end of the day, somebody has to take a decision, and the person best placed to do that will always be the Chief Constable. The Government may not like his decision, if they have a political view on a parade, those involved in the parade may not like his decision, and those who are concerned residents may not like his decision, but, in law, if somebody has to take a decision, the person best placed to take it will be the Chief Constable. Nobody will be better placed. There is recognition of that fact in the fallback positions in the Bill.
Having moved away from having mediation as the commission's central role, we are moving tonight toward removing mediation from the picture. That is a mistake. If there is to be any resolution of the problems surrounding parades and counter-demonstrations, it has to come through mediation. The Minister ensures that that is less likely by introducing the amendment.
I hope that the Minister will understand that the effect of the amendment perhaps justifies the walking away, as it has been referred to, of Dr. Roy Magee. Roy Magee entered the commission because he believed that the road forward would at least include mediation, and that mediation would probably be central to the road. As soon as he understood the Government's intention, he walked away. Whatever we might think of Roy Magee, his action shows that there was a change of intent between the Conservative Administration and the present Labour Administration.

11 pm

The Minister might like to take the opportunity to adjust some terminology that was used earlier. The remarks could have been misinterpreted. I hope that it was merely bad phraseology. It was said, in effect, that the largest group of thugs and criminals would get its way. I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that the Orange Order is a group of thugs. He might like the Government's position on that issue to be cleared on the record. The interpretation that I have described could be given to the Minister's remarks. I offer him the opportunity to clarify the position before the earlier remark is misunderstood.

Mr. Worthington: I referred earlier to what the Chief Constable said. He said that he had to evaluate evils. That is what I meant by my expression. I was not implying that people in the Orange Order are thugs. On the streets, however, we saw that illegal forces could hold sway. That is why the Chief Constable was unhappy with the law as it stood and why we were unhappy with it.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I am even concerned about the Chief

Constable's terminology, which suggests that the intention of those who parade, or of those who may on occasions protest against parades, is evil.

Mr. Robert McCartney: My recollection is that the term "thugs and criminals" was used about numbers. It was suggested that the thugs and criminals who could arrive in the greatest numbers would hold sway. I may be wrong but that is my overall impression. The implication seemed to be, if we remember Drumcree, that the greatest number of thugs and criminals there were the many Orangemen, who demonstrated their position.

Mr. Robinson: It is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking specifically about mediation.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) for his intervention. At least the Minister has set the record straight from his point of view.
As for mediation, the Government have made a grave error. The amendment, if agreed to, will isolate those who will take critical decisions from those who will lead to those decisions being taken. Much can be learnt from the personal contact that the amendment will prevent: it is possible to learn who is being stubborn and who is not, or how genuine and sincere people are in their arguments. The decisions of an adjudicator would be greatly assisted by a personal understanding of the position of those in relation to whom he will adjudicate. Having said that, however, my argument is that the body should be involved in mediation, not adjudication.
May I say to the Minister that the political motivation behind opposition to parades is seen most clearly with reference to a parade that takes place in the Republic of Ireland, in Donegal, which passes off quite peacefully. The Orangemen involved can have a good day out celebrating their culture, as they would seek to do anywhere in Northern Ireland. Many of us are left wondering why they are allowed to do that in the Irish Republic, where the massive disposition of those around them would be of a nationalist or republican leaning, whereas in a Protestant town such as Portadown they are not to be allowed those rights to express their culture.
That example identifies a political motivation that shows clearly to those of us in Northern Ireland who might in other circumstances wish to see some flexibility that there should not be flexibility if that means giving way to those who are seeking to attack and disrupt a culture. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Bill will do nothing to ensure that those people lose or fail. In effect, it marks their success. It shows that their years of work behind the scenes at raising the issue of parades and causing disruption has had an impact on the Government and is causing changes to take place.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The debate must be seen in the context of the peace process as a whole. Everyone appreciates that the IRA declared its first ceasefire on 31 August 1994, and it is not without relevance that the first confrontation at Drumcree occurred the following summer, in July 1995, and has been building up ever since not only there, but on the lower Ormeau road and in Derry.
The significance of that is that, once under the terms of the ceasefire Sinn Fein-IRA had agreed that they would not overtly bomb and shoot, they had to carry on the struggle by other means. There were two other means. First, as Gerry Adams openly admitted on an RTE programme, the protests and confrontations did not happen spontaneously. They were the work of Sinn Fein activists over a period of years. The other aspect in which they carried on the struggle was the domination in their own areas of control by a vast increase in punishment beatings, which escalated by 400 per cent.
Those were the twin aspects of the struggle being carried on, as Clausewitz might have said, by other means. That situation was deliberately constructed, and the Bill deals with it. The Bill purports to deal with a problem that did not arise organically, as it were, but was the deliberate creation of a small group of terrorists. All the front men in the areas of most acute confrontation are ex-IRA men with criminal convictions for serious crimes. That is the background.
On the amendments, one of the objections to the original proposals for a commission of the kind that the Bill puts in place was that it should both mediate and adjudicate. Anyone who has any experience of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings knows that it is impossible for the arbitrator or the adjudicator to perform both functions—and it should be impossible.
If the arbitrator mediates between two parties, inevitably, in the course of mediation, the desirable outcome that he envisages as judge and the view that he would recommend as mediator become known to the parties. If the parties do not agree following mediation, the arbitrator must then don his adjudicator's hat. At that stage, he will arrive at a decision—which he has already identified to the parties in the course of mediation as his preferred option. I know of no judge who will directly undertake mediation between parties if, ultimately, he will be called upon to make the definitive decision.
Therefore, I can understand to some extent why the Minister seeks to remove the term "mediate" and to use instead the term "facilitate mediation". It is clearly recognised that the commission should not perform both functions. If that were the true position, and mediation were to be removed from the equation altogether, we could perhaps run with the amendment. However, I suspect that it is simply a play upon words. What is the distinction between the meaning of "mediate" in this context and "facilitate mediation"? Does it amount to a hill of beans? Does it mean that, instead of mediating directly, the commission will mediate by proxy? Is "facilitating mediation" really mediation by proxy? If it is, will the commission's views not be made evident to the parties?
The language employed by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is significant. He described the commission as acting as "mediator, go-between and facilitator"—I am subject to what subsequently appears in Hansard, but I am pretty certain that he used those words. In other words, the distinction between someone who does not mediate and someone who facilitates mediation will be completely blurred. If we permit the phrase "facilitate mediation" to remain, we shall end up with the worst of both possible worlds: we shall have someone who is nominally not a mediator mediating, and an adjudicator certainly adjudicating.
We should avoid that situation. The commission is either a mediating body or an adjudicating body. We must deprecate the practice of including in the legislation words that are capable of giving the commission both those functions without actually saying so

Mr. William Ross: What point is there in having an adjudicating body that can be overridden by the police and the Secretary of State further down the line? That is what will happen in a really intense situation.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that observation. No matter what structures or institutions we create by way of this legislation, a decision must ultimately be taken by a person on the ground who has the authority to say yea or nay.
Ultimately, when the confronting bodies face each other and there is a likelihood of a serious breach of the peace, some decision will have to be made on what is to be done. The hon. Gentleman is correct. That decision will ultimately be made by the Chief Constable. Although nominally in some circumstances the decision may be taken by the Secretary of State, it will be a strong, and perhaps foolish, Secretary of State who, in the face of a clear, positive recommendation from her Chief Constable as head of the security forces, will do the opposite. Then, not only will security responsibility be assumed by the Minister, but ultimate political responsibility for the outcome will also be assumed by the Minister in the worst possible circumstances.

Essentially, the legislation is about putting some sort of cover mechanism between political responsibility and the decision made. It is a situation in which political responsibility and operational responsibility, which should rest with the Chief Constable, will be blurred by the amorphous body in the middle, the commission. The Government will seek to shelter behind that commission in its adjudicating function. Therefore, it should be made as clear as it can be made in this legislation what the function of that body is. It should be made clear that it is either an adjudicating body that takes responsibility to whatever level—

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I entirely accept the line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing, and I ask him to entertain the proposition that the blurring that the creation of the commission creates may be part of that progressive programme of disengagement and should be seen in a wider context of the betrayal of British Ulster.

Mr. McCartney: Certainly, one of the common perceptions among the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland is that the Government are seeking to divest themselves of authority. That can also be seen in that wider context of the Government saying that nasty decisions have be taken for which Governments should in the normal course of things be taking political responsibility. If we interpose between Government and the people, on whose behalf those decisions are being taken, some other body, such as the commission, the decision or decisions are the commission's. Only in the acute situation where it is plain that the commission's


decision will be neither respected nor honoured, and there is a confrontation between the conflicting parties that requires the possible intervention of the civil arm in the form of the Chief Constable and the RUC, will any political responsibility be taken. In all other cases, there will be this shock absorber, this blurring effect of the commission.
Be that as it may, the point is that, if we are to have the commission, its functions and powers must be defined in the clearest possible way. If it is to have mediation as well as adjudicating functions, so be it; if it is to have adjudicating functions only, that is all it should have. The use of nebulous language about facilitating mediation might mean that we had the worst of both worlds. The provision would infringe the basic, accepted principle of judicial and quasi-judicial matters that someone should not mediate if he or she will also be the ultimate adjudicator. The position should be clear. Let us take the requirements for the Parades Commission to mediate and to facilitate mediation out of the Bill. The body should simply adjudicate or mediate, but it should not combine two functions that are recognised as incompatible.

Mr. Öpik: I shall advance the fourth of the four possible positions in the debate on the amendment. I believe that we should maintain the status quo and leave the Bill as it was originally drafted. The commission should have the options to mediate or to facilitate mediation. It would be sad if we had to take away from the commission the opportunity to mediate, which should be one of its main purposes. Government amendment No. 16 would remove the opportunity for direct mediation and amendment No. 33, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would remove the opportunity to facilitate mediation.
The North report revealed that 80 per cent. of the population want parades to be mediated. In other words, the function of mediation is a vital expectation of the people whom the commission is intended to serve. The North report states:
Mediation can play a crucial role in helping to resolve potential conflicts.
It also states:
We doubt whether the Parades Commission itself would need to develop a professional mediation capability amongst its own staff.
However, we would lose nothing by giving the commission the opportunity to test that point.
The commission will have to find the most effective way to mediate, and it would be premature to remove the commission's opportunity—through experimentation and trial and error—to discover whether it should mediate directly. That does not have to mean a formal process. If we expect the process always to involve facilitation, we would formalise a matter with which the commission could sometimes deal informally. That point brings us back to the difficulties of definition that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) described.
When we consider the question of adjudication versus mediation, we should remember that the commission may have problems in performing both roles in a particular instance, but we should not prevent it from deciding to act as an adjudicator on one occasion and as a mediator

on a separate occasion. If the commission could perform both roles on different occasions, it would have more flexibility to adopt the most suitable approach for the circumstances it faced.
I do not agree with the fears expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Down about a conspiracy theory in which the Government and political leaders would hide behind the commission to avoid taking political decisions. The Government have shown some courage in their dealings with Northern Ireland, as did the previous Administration. They did not indulge in scapegoating or hiding behind other organisations. It is a fair risk to take to assume that giving the commission the opportunity to mediate and to adjudicate on different occasions would not result in an abdication of responsibility by Westminster's representatives in Northern Ireland.
Why should the commission not be allowed to deem what sort of mediation would be appropriate, as the North report envisaged? That returns us to importance of flexibility. By taking away direct mediation from the commission's repertoire, are we not moving further away from peaceful resolution by tying the commission's hands before it has even had the opportunity to try that approach? I understand that the Minister intends mediation to be done by others, but surely who mediates will vary from circumstance to circumstance.
The difficulty of finding the right mediator in each given circumstance has been lucidly highlighted, but it cannot be insuperable. If we cannot find one among the 1.5 million people of Northern Ireland, there are other places we can go to find one. It is a red herring to assume that it is impossible to find someone who would be acceptable to both sides. The Parades Commission is given the duty of being aware of what to do in particular circumstances. The professionals involved in that role will be more than able to ensure that mediating facilitators can do the job.
Either amendment would take away from the Bill. I re-emphasise that we could not vote on both amendments together because they are mutually contradictory. If it goes to a vote, I assume that we shall have the opportunity to vote on each amendment individually.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) talked of the fourth dimension to the debate. In doing so, he reminded me of the debate that I have been having in trying to arrive at a conclusion about the best way forward. The Bill as it stands tries to take on board one important dimension of the issue and set out the sort of arguments that the hon. Gentleman raised about the role of mediation, facilitating mediation, and adjudication.
In the debate and in listening to representations about the precise nature of what the Parades Commission should do, I took into account the commission's view of its role. It is easy for Governments to legislate and impose powers on bodies but we must take the good advice of those who will have to carry things out. The commission has a view about that.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) discussed whether mediation should appear at all and whether there should be a straightforward adjudicatory role for the Parades


Commission. If he takes that view, he had the opportunity to table amendments to that effect. I do not think that he did. It is all very well arguing that principle, but he could have sought to amend the Bill. We do not have the opportunity to discuss that. It so happens that I do not accept his conclusions. If I recollect correctly, he claimed that the original intention—I assume he means of the North report—was that the commission should both mediate and adjudicate. Paragraph 29 of chapter 12 of the report recommended that the remit should include promoting and facilitating mediation and the search for local accommodation, along with the adjudication role.
Standing back from the debate, considering my earlier views about the way in which the Bill was constructed, then going back to North, listening to the arguments that were advanced, and knowing that the Parades Commission saw the need—again consistent with what was laid down in North—to place the mediation role in the hands of authorised officers who would discharge the function of mediation and get as closely engaged with the process as possible, I felt that it was desirable to move the legislation back closer to what North originally recommended. I would not say that that is easy. The report of our proceedings in Committee shows the arguments that I advanced, which were not dissimilar from those expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I have said consistently that it is important to listen to other opinions to try to reach the best conclusion.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), by his logical argument, could almost convince people that all is sweetness and light in Northern Ireland, that this task is easy, and that two people can have different points of view. Clearly, the reality is fundamentally different. This is not a black-and-white issue, with all the bad guys on one side, and all the good guys on the other. He cannot argue that it would be all sweetness and light if only people were reasonable. We are dealing with a deeply difficult problem.
11.30 pm
The Government of the United Kingdom are charged with that problem, and must represent not just the views of people in Northern Ireland, but those of the British people. They see what happens in those parades and marches, only a few of which are contentious and result in major disorder. We are charged on behalf of all the citizens of the United Kingdom to resolve this issue. That is why the previous Administration established the North committee, and why we have taken the matter forward. We must deal with the wider constituency of interests in the United Kingdom. That is an important aspect of our job. The people of the United Kingdom want good and responsible legislation to deal with a problem that is on their doorstep. It is not easy: it is incredibly difficult.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: No. I am concluding my remarks. We have had a long debate on this issue, as we did in Committee. I have tried to explain why I have come this conclusion. It is a difficult issue, and I have taken account of the views of the Parades Commission and others.
I shall close my remarks by responding to the pointed question of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He asked whether we have a replacement for

Roy Magee. The answer is no, but I hope that the Secretary of State will make an announcement in the next two weeks. I ask the House to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 26.

Division No. 150]
[10.19 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Forsythe, Clifford
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David



Walker, Cecil


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Ken Maginnis and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Rev. Martin Smyth.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Alexander, Douglas
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dawson, Hilton


Austin, John
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dismore, Andrew


Begg, Miss Anne
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Efford, Clive


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Etherington, Bill


Browne, Desmond
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Burgon, Colin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Galloway, George


Caton, Martin
Gapes, Mike


Cawsey, Ian
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chaytor, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chidgey, David
Godman, Norman A


Church, Ms Judith
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Grant, Bernie


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hepburn, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Heppell, John


Cranston, Ross
Hesford, Stephen


Crausby, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hill, Keith


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hodge, Ms Margaret





Home Robertson, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Hope, Phil
Öpik, Lembit


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Perham, Ms Linda


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pickthall, Colin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rendel, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Ms Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sanders, Adrian


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Savidge, Malcolm


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lidington, David
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lock, David
Singh, Marsha


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Macdonald, Calum



McFall, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McIsaac, Shona
Soley, Clive


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stringer, Graham


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moore, Michael
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Todd, Mark


Morley, Elliot
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don


Mountford, Kali
Trickett, Jon


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Norris, Dan
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vis, Dr Rudi






Watts, David
Wood, Mike


Webb, Steve
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Division No. 151]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Alexander, Douglas
Howells, Dr Kim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Atkins, Charlotte
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Austin, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Begg, Miss Anne
Mutton, John


Benton, Joe
Iddon, Dr Brian


Blackman, Liz
Ingram, Adam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Boateng, Paul
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Jenkins, Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)



Browne, Desmond
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Burgon, Colin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clapham, Michael
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Levitt, Tom


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lock, David


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Coffey, Ms Ann
McCabe, Steve


Connarty, Michael
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Corston, Ms Jean
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McGrady, Eddie


Crausby, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
McIsaac, Shona


Davidson, Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McNulty, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Dawson, Hilton
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Mallaber, Judy


Dobbin, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Donohoe, Brian H
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Alun


Drown, Ms Julia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Edwards, Huw
Miller, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Moran, Ms Margaret


Flint, Caroline
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Fyfe, Maria
Mountford, Kali


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mudie, George


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Norman A
Norris, Dan


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Eddie


Grogan, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hain, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pike, Peter L


Hanson, David
Pope, Greg


Healey, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Hill, Keith
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Radice, Giles






Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stringer, Graham


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wise, Audrey


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Janet Anderson and


Stott, Roger
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

CODE OF CONDUCT

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 2, line 10, after 'procession' insert 'or protest meeting'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 12, at end insert 'or protest meeting'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 7

PROCEDURAL RULES

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'or any previous procession' and insert
'or any related protest meeting or in relation to any previous procession or protest meeting'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 10

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 14, at end insert 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 and 29 to 32.

Mr. Ingram: This group of amendments would remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consult, where practicable, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland public order committee before imposing a banning order. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 remove the obligation in the Bill, while amendments Nos. 29 to 32 are consequential on that. The amendments are by no means a vote of no confidence in PANI. Rather, they reflect its changing responsibilities as a result both of this Bill and of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which we hope will be on the statute book shortly.
There are two main reasons why it is no longer necessary for the Secretary of State to consult the committee. The first is that establishing the Parades Commission has provided a forum for the sort of community representation work in this area that formerly fell to PANI. We have recognised the frustration from many people in the nationalist community that the legislative framework concerning parades has not enabled it to express its feelings adequately. The North report recognised—indeed, supported—the perception that a mainly public order-based approach did not enable wider considerations of the conflicting rights and responsibilities at issue to be taken into account.
The setting up the Parades Commission will enable extensive consultation and, we hope, lead to more brokered local accommodation. That is the central thrust of what we hope to achieve. Of course, that will be the commission's main objective. When the commission issues its determination, it will be able to do so with full knowledge of the views of all sides of the community, by the means that we have discussed in earlier debates. The Government believe that this is a considerable improvement on existing legislation, so consultation with another body with community-representation responsibility is no longer necessary.
The second reason is that the changes that the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which has received its Second Reading, will bring about in structures governing policing mean that the PANI will no longer have responsibility for day-to-day resource issues. Under the old system, resource issues would, of course, have been one of the main reasons for consulting the PANI committee. That is not to say that PANI will have no interest in the policing of public processions and counter-demonstrations. Indeed, the Chief Constable will remain accountable to the police authority for the policing of such controversial events.
Some Committee amendments sought to extend the number of people whom the Secretary of State should consult before imposing a banning order. Our commitment to consultation in the Bill has been well rehearsed, both in Committee and elsewhere during the


presentation of the Bill's main thrust, but we do not believe that extensive consultation over such sensitive and urgent decisions as imposing a ban would be sensible. Given the shortage of time in these exceptional circumstances, we believe that the Secretary of State needs to be able to make effective decisions quickly.
PANI was consulted—

Mr. Moss: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I may know the point that the hon. Gentleman is going to raise; I am perhaps reading his mind.
Before we tabled our amendment, PANI was consulted about the intention to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consult it. It agreed and saw the sense in what the Government are seeking to do, so we have PANI's support for the amendment. I ask that hon. Members support the amendments accordingly.

Mr. Moss: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Ingram: No, I have finished.

Mr. Moss: I was going to intervene on the Minister, but he did not give me the opportunity to do so. I am just delighted that he now seems to be second-guessing what I am going to ask.

Mr. Maginnis: The proposed change in the people who advise the Secretary of State is one of the most insidious and shameful. With respect, I wish that the Minister was a little less arrogant and a little more tolerant. He may be a Minister in a Government who have a large majority, but I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and I remember when another party behaved with the same arrogance—ultimately, it did not pay. Perhaps the Minister should take that on board.
In all the actions of the Government, past and present, I have seen something that has been engineered by the police division in the Northern Ireland Office, something which reduces the influence and authority of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. One has to go back 25 years to remember why the authority was established in the first place. It was established because there was a perception that the RUC was subject to political control. Everything in the Bill suggests that that is not far from the minds of those on the Government Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) highlighted the new powers being given to the Secretary of State. When one combines the powers given to her in this Bill with those that she will have under the Police (Northern Bill) Bill, to which the Minister alluded in an earlier debate, one can see that she will increasingly have direct, effective control over the Chief Constable and the command of the RUC. The role of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is being sidestepped to such an extent that there will be no protection for society in general in Northern Ireland because of political influence over that civil power.
It is not just the present Government who have been guilty of mistreating the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I do not want to detract from the contribution made by the very competent people from both traditions who have served on the Police Authority down the years, but we have seen some apparently deliberately mischievous appointments to the authority. I am thinking of the appointment of people such as David Cook, for example, who is well known for his pompous, self-seeking role in society in Northern Ireland. He is someone who makes his living by being a member of various quangos.

Mr. Ingram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: Unlike the Minister, I am happy to do so.

Mr. Ingram: Will the hon. Gentleman give one example of a mischievous appointment made by this Administration?

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister should listen more carefully. I did not pick out this Administration for its carelessness on the Police Authority. I hope that he will give me credit for that. Some of their policies this Bill and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill are being pursued against sound advice, and will not leave them vindicated when the results begin to show.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Government have removed members of my party from all quangos, including the Police Authority, because one of them was an ex-member of the RUC who would not be led by the nose. I have already told the Secretary of State about that. How dare the Minister say that all his appointments are fair?

Mr. Maginnis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. His suspicions are no greater than mine about how the Government are going about their business.
I was alluding to the appointment by the previous Administration of David Cook, who was appointed against very good advice and turned out to be an unsatisfactory chairman of the Police Authority. He had to be removed by the Secretary of State, along with Chris Ryder, who was also appointed against good advice. We believed that a practising journalist was not a suitable candidate to serve on the Police Authority. There was a conflict of interest in that appointment, because his journalistic interests could not be pursued alongside his Police Authority duties without one impinging on the other.
I shall not fall into the Minister's trap yet by talking about recent appointments, but they will come to light shortly. The Police Authority has been dealt a death blow by the previous Administration and this Administration. We shall find ourselves in a sorry situation when the chickens come home to roost.
The clause removes another substantive role from the Police Authority. The police will not have the cushion between their critics and their political masters that they have had for the past 26 years.
The issue is not particularly important on its own, but it is symptomatic of an attitude that is intended to damage the Police Authority and the police, so that the


Government's proposals for the future of the RUC will appear justified. That is why I want to put that marker down. We are aware of what is intended by those in the police division of the Northern Ireland Office, and of the acquiescence of Ministers to the future dangers that they are creating. which have been pointed out to them.

Mr. Ingram: Many of the comments have related to forthcoming debates in Committee on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Bill is relevant in the sense that it deals with some of the matters with which it is worth while dealing in these debates. I am sorry that I set the hare running. I just wish that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone had listened to what I said.
The Police Authority was consulted and agreed with what we are seeking to do. The amendment does not strip away any powers. To take that argument forward and say that what the amendment proposes is the most insidious aspect of the whole Bill stretches my imagination. Perhaps the lateness of the hour is causing me difficulty in understanding the logic that is being presented to us.
On attacks on individuals who serve on public bodies and implied attacks on civil servants in the police division
who—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ingram: I have heard the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone make some quite outrageous personal comments about such people. It is quite easy to do so under parliamentary privilege. If he continues to make such attacks, he will hear a robust defence in support of civil servants. Of course, they have no right to respond to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that, and that is why he usually comments under parliamentary privilege.
I commend the amendment on the basis that there has been proper consultation on it. The Police Authority is happy with what we are suggesting, and it sensibly amends the Bill.

12 midnight

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know what the Minister is referring to when he comments on statements made about civil servants. I make my comments to civil servants to their face. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State. Mr. Steele told absolute lies. He was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that he was a liar. He could not open his mouth—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member must be seated when I am on my feet. The matters that he is raising are nothing to do with the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would challenge us on certain things. The Government challenged us. When I got up to answer, I was ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for what the Minister has to say.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 10.

Division No. 151]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Alexander, Douglas
Howells, Dr Kim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Atkins, Charlotte
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Austin, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Begg, Miss Anne
Mutton, John


Benton, Joe
Iddon, Dr Brian


Blackman, Liz
Ingram, Adam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Boateng, Paul
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Jenkins, Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)



Browne, Desmond
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Burgon, Colin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clapham, Michael
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Levitt, Tom


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lock, David


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Coffey, Ms Ann
McCabe, Steve


Connarty, Michael
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Corston, Ms Jean
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McGrady, Eddie


Crausby, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
McIsaac, Shona


Davidson, Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McNulty, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Dawson, Hilton
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Mallaber, Judy


Dobbin, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Donohoe, Brian H
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Alun


Drown, Ms Julia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Edwards, Huw
Miller, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Moran, Ms Margaret


Flint, Caroline
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Fyfe, Maria
Mountford, Kali


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mudie, George


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Norman A
Norris, Dan


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Eddie


Grogan, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hain, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pike, Peter L


Hanson, David
Pope, Greg


Healey, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Hill, Keith
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Radice, Giles






Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stringer, Graham


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wise, Audrey


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Janet Anderson and


Stott, Roger
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Brand, Dr Peter
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Forsythe, Clifford
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Thompson, William


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Hunter, Andrew
Walker, Cecil


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Webb, Steve


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Willis, Phil


Moore, Michael



Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Rendel, David
Mr. Ken Maginnis.

Division No. 152]
[12.2 am


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Atherton, Ms Candy
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Atkins, Charlotte
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Austin, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Benton, Joe
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Blears, Ms Hazel
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Boateng, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
McAllion, John


Bradshaw, Ben
McAvoy, Th omas


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
McCabe, Steve


Browne, Desmond
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Burgon, Colin
McGrady, Eddie


Burstow, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Caborn, Richard
McIsaac, Shona


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNulty, Tony


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
McWilliam, John


Chidgey, David
Marek, Dr John


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Michael, Alun


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Miller, Andrew


Clelland, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clwyd, Ann
Moore, Michael


Coffey, Ms Ann
Mountford, Kali


Connarty, Michael
Mudie, George


Crausby, David
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Norris, Dan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Hara, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Öpik, Lembit


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Pickthall, Colin


Dawson, Hilton
Pike, Peter L


Dobbin, Jim
Pope, Greg


Donohoe, Brian H
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Doran, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Purchase, Ken


Drown, Ms Julia
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ennis, Jeff
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Foulkes, George
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rooney, Terry


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Rowlands, Ted


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Roy, Frank


Godsiff, Roger
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Grogan, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hain, Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Sanders, Adrian


Hanson, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Healey, John
Sheerman, Barry


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Heppell, John
Singh, Marsha


Hill, Keith
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spellar, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Hutton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Iddon, Dr Brian
Stott, Roger


Ingram, Adam
Stringer, Graham


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Stunell, Andrew


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Jamieson, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Jenkins, Brian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)






Timms, Stephen
Webb, Steve


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike



Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Watts, David
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 7, line 15, leave out from 'Constable' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 11

REGISTRATION OF BANDS TAKING PART IN PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 40, after 'court' insert
'or other body or person'.
The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's power to introduce a registration scheme for bands. As was explained in Committee, the Government consider that the commission will have sufficient powers under the Bill to deal with the mischief caused by some bands. Therefore, the provisions in clause 11 as it stands should be viewed as a reserve power, which broadly replicates provisions in the 1987 order.
However, should the commission's powers not be sufficient, some have suggested bringing into force the registration scheme—indeed, recommendation 38 of the North report specifically suggested that the Government should give consideration to the introduction of a registration scheme for bands. The report did not consider in detail what sort of scheme would be best, but suggested that a court-based scheme along the same lines as the scheme for clubs in Northern Ireland might be appropriate.
12.15 am
Clause 11 as it stands gives that power to introduce a court-based scheme, but I have listened to representations made in Committee and elsewhere and, on reflection, I have decided that it would be useful to keep a number of options open. The power to introduce a registration scheme might well be used in circumstances that we cannot at present foresee. It makes sense to leave the provision as flexible as possible, so that the Government are not wholly restricted to a court-based scheme, hence the amendment. It would expand the range of flexibility

open to the Government in what is a reserve power—one that has not been exercised to date and which may never be required to be exercised.

Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister confirm that that does not exclude the use of the court, but simply expands the range of choices when registering a band?

Mr. Ingram: That is the case. The amendment simply expands the range of options open to us, and it has been proposed because of representations. Because of the difficulties associated with a court-based scheme, it would not be easy to implement such a measure, but if that was what was required to be done, it would be done. The amendment expands the flexibility open to the Government, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. William Ross: I am somewhat surprised to see the amendment on the amendment paper, because we discussed the proposal in Committee and the Minister's closing remarks tonight illustrate the immense difficulties associated with it. He said, that if it was necessary to do it, it would be done, but he seemed to be saying, "When the time comes, we shall do wonders, we know not what or how."
There is no clear way forward in this matter; it is something with which various groups in society who have close connections with bands have wrestled for many years and no one has, as yet, come up with a satisfactory scheme. When the Minister says that if it is necessary to do it, he will do it, he means, "At the last minute, we shall cobble something together"—in other words, it will be another flipping disaster. We need that like we need a second head.
The Minister also said that he listened to what was said in Committee and elsewhere. Would he care to specify what the "elsewhere" is? We are so used to open government nowadays that we are always willing to hear what the Minister has to say. We were somewhat disappointed on Second Reading, when the Rev. Roy Magee had resigned a week previously and the Secretary of State knew.

Mr. Ingram: So as to speed up proceedings, I shall state that "elsewhere" included those who have responsibility for the administration of justice, because they would have responsibility for trying to define some of the aspects of a court-based scheme. A range of opinions were taken on this matter—I would suggest that that is responsible government.

Mr. Ross: Let me finish my point about Roy Magee first. The Secretary of State had known that he had resigned for a week before Second Reading, so in the interests of open government she did not tell anyone, and it seeped out the next day.
When the Minister tells us that he consulted those who have responsibility for legislating and the legal end of things, we wonder whether it is just barely possible that they told him, "This is extremely difficult to do, Minister. We think that you should look rather wider than a court-based scheme, because the courts do not really want one. That being so, we want to hand the whole thing over to somebody else."

Mr. Beggs: A royal commission.

Mr. Ross: No, not a royal commission, but the Parades Commission. My hon. Friend will understand


that there are only about a dozen contentious parades. The commissioners will have plenty of time on their hands to worry about the registration of bands and set down the rules. Of course, a band can disappear under one name and reappear under another the next day. An amalgamation of several bands may appear. That is the sort of problem that we have always had, which reflects the sort of people with whom we have had to deal.
I wonder whether the Minister has any clear idea of what sort of body or person will examine the bands and produce a registration scheme. What quango will rule on what is acceptable as a band? The Minister will remember the cheerful little debate that we had in Committee on what constituted a band. It was all very amusing, but that debate did not take us very much further. We shall be looking to the commission and then we shall be wondering whether there will be an appeal mechanism to the courts.
I am not happy about the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how he expects to implement it. What he has said so far has served only to raise a host of questions in my head, to which I want answers. We are dealing with a sensitive and intricate subject. It would be difficult to find an unacceptable scheme, but to find an acceptable scheme is, in my view, impossible.

Mr. Ingram: I shall move the sweetie from one side of my mouth to the other, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has raised a fundamental issue. He is right in saying that we are dealing with complex and difficult matters and that it is not easy to arrive at an acceptable solution. I have not given any thought to the detail, because there has been no attempt at implementation. We are talking about a reserve power. I have no doubt that, if we decided to set forth on a range of options, the hon. Gentleman and his party, through the normal process of open government and a willingness to consult as many people as possible, would have the opportunity to make their views known.

Mr. William Ross: Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he say that he is introducing an important amendment in a sensitive part of the Bill without having given it much thought? Is not that symptomatic of what has happened throughout all stages of our consideration of the Bill so far?

Mr. Ingram: No. My remarks related to the amendment, which is designed to give increased flexibility. I referred also to the detail of the application of the provision, which involves a long-existing reserve power that has never been exercised. There are views, of course, about how it should be implemented, and those are associated with complications. There is no intention now to exercise the reserve power.
I have enough on my plate to be going on with as a Minister, and I am sure that the same applies to other Ministers, in trying to administer what is taking place in Northern Ireland. I try to exercise the faculties that I have to the best effect. There is no point in trying to consider things that are not to be brought into being. We try to

focus on what will be implemented and will have effect. That is surely a good use of time and of the limited brain power that we might have. We wish to take the most effective and best administrative approach, and that is why I said what I did. The hon. Member for East Londonderry somewhat extended my comments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, line 27, leave out 'or other'.
It gives me pleasure to move the amendment, because it reflects the important contribution made in Committee by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who I had hoped would be present when we reached this amendment.
The amendment will ensure that the definition of a band in the Bill will cover only those gathered for the purpose of playing musical instruments. It will exclude the mysterious reference to "other instruments" in the Bill as drafted, which reflects existing legislation. We had some fun in Committee suggesting what "other instruments" that were not musical instruments might mean in relation to a band. We spoke about dustbin lids and skiffle bands, and it was suggested that the spoons and perhaps bones would fall into that category. We thought of many examples, but rather than trying to find justification for the phrase, I have decided to delete it.
My attention was drawn to the anomaly in the Bill, which has been in existing legislation for some time, but good draftsmanship demands that it should be removed. That is the reason for amendment No. 23.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 10, line 38, at end insert—
'"protest meeting" means an open—air public meeting (within the meaning of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987)—

(a) which is, or is to be, held—

(i) at a place which is on or in the vicinity of the route or proposed route of a public procession; and
(ii) at or about the same time as the procession is being or is to be held; and

(b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on that route or proposed route;'

No. 25, in page 11, line 2, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of this Act a protest meeting is "related" to a public procession if the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the meeting is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on its route or proposed route.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 18

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 11, line 25, at end insert 'or protest meeting'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 1

THE COMMISSION

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 12, line 13, leave out 'more' and insert 'less than'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 40, in page 12, line 34, at end insert—
'(6) Membership of the Parades Commission shall consist of United Kingdom citizens, resident in Northern Ireland, appointed by the Secretary of State so as to secure, as far as practicable, that the membership is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.'.
Government amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 7, in page 12, line 40, at end insert
'The quorum for the purposes of a determination under section 7 shall be 3 where there are 5 members of the Commission, 4 where there are 6 members of the Commission and 5 where there are 7 members of the Commission.'.

Mr. Ross: This is another amendment in which there is a typographical error. It should read "less", not "less than". We are trying to make improvements to the schedule, which at present states that there should be
not more than 6 other members
of the commission.
The amendment had the support of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) who is not in his place at present. We believe that there is a good case for having more than six other members. We are asking the Government to remove the restriction to six other members and to leave open the possibility of there being more.
Government amendment No. 27 states:
The Secretary of State shall so exercise his powers of appointment under this paragraph as to secure that as far as is practicable the membership of the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland".
The possibility of a complex society being properly represented in a way that is fair to the various sections of the community by a commission that has no more than six members is nonsense.
The Government have accepted the case that we made in Committee, and they accept the case that I am trying to make in the amendment, so I see no good reason why the Minister should not immediately accept the amendment. We could then all go home, after another couple of hours on Third Reading.
The Minister knows that his amendment is defective if what is sought is to make the membership of the commission representative of the community in Northern Ireland. Given the problems that we have experienced with Mrs. Brig Rogers and the attempts by the Dublin Government to have people selected—we have already outlined the leak from Dublin civil servants—the Minister should understand our concern that the membership of the commission, whose work is very sensitive, should comprise United Kingdom citizens who are resident in Northern Ireland. Surely the people of Northern Ireland have sufficient gumption to hold down jobs on the commission.
12.30 am
That is why I have tabled amendment No. 40, which states:
Membership of the Parades Commission shall consist of United Kingdom citizens, resident in Northern Ireland, appointed by the Secretary of State so as to secure, as far as practicable, that the membership is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
In other words, the amendment contains the provision that the Government have foolishly left out of their amendment. We urge the Government simply to dispense with amendment No. 27 and accept amendment No. 40. We would all be happy to hear the Government say that they, like us, believe that the commission should comprise United Kingdom citizens.
I realise that that would rule out Mr. Sean Farren, Mrs. Rogers and several other leading members of the Social Democratic and Labour party who were born in the Irish Republic, who have never relinquished their citizenship of that country and who undoubtedly travel on Irish passports, and thus would not be acceptable to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland as representing their best interests or being fair and unbiased in their judgment. I do not see why the Government should not accept this very reasonable amendment.
The hon. Member for South Down has tabled an amendment regarding the quorum, which has appeared on the amendment paper before. The Government have tried to accommodate him, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his amendment. My party supported him strongly in Committee, and we still believe that what he proposes is a good idea. That view is also clearly shared by the Government, who have come part of the way to meet him. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put his amendment to the test tonight, we shall be happy to support him.
The Government would usually jump at an opportunity to secure full cross-community, cross-religious and cross-party support. As the Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and our colleague the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—who has apparently departed the Chamber—are in favour of this sensible, far-reaching amendment, why does the Minister not stand up immediately and say that the Government will accept it?
Hon. Members will appreciate that this is a very important group of amendments that tests the Government's intention to be fair and to ensure that the membership of the commission reflects the whole Northern Ireland community and the various interests within it. The commission should comprise more members than the legislation states at present, and it may be enlarged by amendment No. 39. The Minister must realise that Government amendment No. 27 concerning membership is defective and that ours is much better. The hon. Member for South Down would no doubt agree that his amendment is also far better than the Government's puny effort. We therefore have before us three amendments that could be accepted happily by the whole House.

Mr. McGrady: Our debate on my amendment No. 7 should be the least emotive that we have this evening, or this morning, in that it relates purely to an appreciation of numeracy. I thought that my amendment in Committee,


which was not accepted but which is repeated here this evening, was a fairly logical numerical progression whereby a quorum is seen to be an adequate number of the total membership of the commission.
I cannot conceive of anybody designing the Government's amendment. Government amendment No. 28 says that, where the commission consists of seven members, the quorum shall be four; and where the commission consists of six, the quorum shall be three. In other words, a decision could be made with three present out of six, and presumably a majority of three is two, so two out of six could make a decision. That is bad.
The membership of the commission is not defined in the Act. I think that it is a maximum of seven—the chairman and six possible other members. To go on down the list, where there are five, four or three members of the commission, the quorum shall be two. That is a recipe for bad decision making in any society, be it a local football club, the women's institute, or wherever. There is no logic in the Government's amendment.
I should not have minded my amendment being doctored a little, but I cannot understand why the Government have substituted their amendment for my much more logical proposal. It is self-evident that a commission with a membership of four or five should not have a quorum of two, and that a commission of six should not have a quorum of three. Where the numbers of the commission are so small, the analysis of the decision making will be quite important to the consequences of its work. In all cases where a decision has to be made, there should at least be a majority in every case of the total membership of the commission.
Not only in view of the unanimity among Northern Ireland Members, which is rare on this Bill, but simply because of the sheer logic of my amendment—I put it in modest terms—and the sheer illogicality of the Government's amendment, I urge the Minister, perhaps with unique generosity at this early hour of the morning, to accept amendment No. 7 in place of Government amendment No. 28.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister clarify the amendment? As I understand it, schedule 1, paragraph 2, states:
The Commission shall consist of—

(a) a chairman; and
(b) not more than 6 other members".

That appears to mean that the maximum would be seven. However, paragraph 2(2) states:
The Secretary of State may by order vary the number for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b).
That seems to mean that the Secretary of State could have power to increase the maximum number to seven or eight, or possibly nine.
However, when we come to the quorum, the amendment states that, where the Commission consists of seven members the quorum shall be four, and where the Commission consists of six members the quorum shall be

three, and in any other case two. Does that not mean that, if the Commission were increased to eight, the quorum would only be two? That does not seem logical.

Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend realise that the other horrifying possibility is that the Government might reduce the commission membership to three?

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I accept that a quorum of two may be intended for a number of members lower than six, but a quorum of two for any organisation is nonsense. The quorum for any organisation should be at least three. A quorum of two means that two people could get together and run the show. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Öpik: Amendment No. 7, tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is sensible. I shall not reiterate the arguments in its favour, but if it can be taken separately, it will receive the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Worthington: This group of amendments all deal in some degree with the composition of the Parades Commission. Amendment No. 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would mean that the Parades Commission would consist of a chairman and no fewer than six other members, imposing a minimum of seven.
However, the Bill as drafted reflects consultation by the Government with the Parades Commission—which applies to all our recommendations—and its members, having analysed their work load for the forthcoming year, would prefer the flexibility that the drafted formulation will give. We must respect their views on their work load and on the number of members—that is, a chairman and six other members, giving a maximum of seven. If that is the commission's view on the number of members needed, I can see no good reason why the House should see the matter differently. Therefore, I urge the House to reject amendment No. 39.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister is sticking to his view that the commission should have seven members. As it already contains a well-known member of the SDLP, how many Unionists will be on it? How many members of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionist party will be on the commission?

Mr. Worthington: We shall not appoint people to the commission on the basis of quotas. We shall appoint people on merit, because that is the basis on which we appoint to public bodies. Quotas are divisive, and the Government do not wish to take that approach. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment similar to amendment No. 39, and he said that he was trying to achieve balance within the commission. I believe that Government amendment No. 27 achieves that balance.
There was a clear consensus in Committee, and in the House, on the need for the commission to be representative of the community in Northern Ireland, as far as is practicable. I am sure that that is right. We have sought balance in the existing commission and will


continue to do so, but we are also legally obliged to appoint on merit. We cannot set membership by quota, and we would not want to do so.
Government amendment No. 27 is similar to the requirement in the Police Act relating to the Police Authority. It will make it a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the Parades Commission is, as far as is practicable, representative of the community in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Thompson: If the number of members of the commission were increased to eight—as the Secretary of State has power to do—what would the quorum be? Would it remain two?

Mr. Worthington: I will come to the quorum in a moment.
Amendment No. 40, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, would restrict membership of the commission to UK citizens resident in Northern Ireland. He said that various people would be excluded from membership and that that suited him.
It is very odd for a Unionist to want to exclude citizens of the United Kingdom who do not live in Northern Ireland. That principle is contrary to the spirit of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, article 72 of which applies a statutory prohibition against discrimination on racial grounds to appointments to offices or posts by Ministers and Departments. Article 5(1) provides that "racial grounds" includes the grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins.

Mr. David Trimble: May I refresh the Minister's memory in respect of his own amendment No. 27, which imposes a duty to secure that the
Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland"?
That surely requires him to appoint people who are members of the community of Northern Ireland. How can he say that someone who is not a member of that community is in any way representative of it?

Mr. Worthington: That argument implies that the only characteristic that makes someone representative of Northern Ireland is residence in Northern Ireland. The chair of the Parades Commission is not resident in Northern Ireland, but we think that he is making a considerable contribution. This is dangerous ground for Unionists. It is possible to do a good job for the citizens of Northern Ireland while not being resident in Northern Ireland. We do not want to go that way. If we accepted amendment No. 40, we would discriminate against all non-UK citizens and against UK citizens not resident in Northern Ireland. I therefore urge the House to reject that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 28 are similar. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for tabling amendments in Committee and on Report on the commission's quorum arrangements. We have consulted extensively with the Parades Commission on that. After considering Government amendment No. 28 and his amendment No. 7, we believe that his points have a sound basis. I am told that there is a flaw in his wording, but he made a strong case. The best that we can do at this stage is to leave the Bill as it is. I am being encouraged to ask him to withdraw his amendment while we withdraw ours.

Mr. McGrady: I do not know where the flaw is, but I understand that there is a difficulty in that my proposal for a quorum of five out of seven is a bit top-heavy. I do not want to rehearse what I consider to be the illogicality of the Government's amendment, but if both were withdrawn, we would revert to the quorum in the first draft, which is three whatever the number of members. On that basis, I would be prepared, with the House's permission and on condition that the Government did not press amendment No. 28, not to press amendment No. 7.

Mr. Worthington: We seem to have reached agreement. At the final stage of the Bill, we have shown our willingness to listen to the views expressed in amendments. That has characterised our approach throughout our proceedings on the Bill in this House and in the other place.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 12, line 16, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall so exercise his powers of appointment under this paragraph as to secure that as far as is practicable the membership of the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 15, leave out lines 23 to 26.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 16, line 25, at end insert—


'1970 c. 9 (N.I.).
The Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.
In Schedule 1, paragraph 15(2) to (4).'.

No. 31, in page 16, line 31, column 3, at end insert—




'Article 5(2).'.

No. 32, in page 16, line 36, column 3, at end insert—




'In Schedule 1, paragraph 4.'.


—[Mr. Ingram.]

Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Before I make a few remarks about the Bill, I want to touch on some other, related, issues that are worthy of consideration.
I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will share my revulsion at the appalling series of sectarian murders that have heightened tension in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. Those terrible events cast a dark shadow over the Province. Those who carry out such acts speak for no one other than their own extreme factions. Their purpose is malign, but they should know that it will not prevent or distract the Government from achieving their overall objective of bringing about a peaceful and lasting settlement for all the people of Northern Ireland. The RUC and the security forces will do everything in their power to bring those who carry out such evil acts to justice. The Government, with the support of the vast majority of people across the communities in Northern Ireland, are determined to succeed, and the actions of a murderous few will not stand in the way of the wishes and hopes of the many. I know that I speak for all hon. Members when I make those comments.
The Bill was born out of the dramatic, damaging and dangerous events of recent years associated with what is termed the marching season. The previous Government put in place a mechanism to consider the causes of those events and to seek ways to deal with them. The result was the North report, which was an authoritative study of the problem and proposed a range of measures.
My party in opposition made it clear that, when elected, we would legislate for the implementation of the report. We have now carried out that promise in government.
The Bill, as originally drafted and presented for consideration to the other place, was constructed to take account of various representations made on certain key elements. It received full and detailed scrutiny in the other place. From the outset, we made it clear that we wanted it to reflect as best it could cross-community and cross-party views on these matters. Significant changes were made to the Bill in the other place as a result of the expression of such views. Certain matters were left for further consideration because of the complexities involved.
The Committee stage in this House proved very useful in exploring the issues and seeking the best way in which to deal with them. I thank all who served on the Standing Committee. The amendments that have been made to the Bill today reflect many of the views expressed by hon. Members in Committee and I thank them for their contribution.
If the Bill is passed, the Government will have fulfilled the clear commitment that they made on taking office to implement the recommendations of the North report. We said all along that we believed the report to be correct in its judgment that the problem of parades was the accommodation of competing rights. Our endorsement of the report's conclusions and their embodiment in law will ensure a new approach to a difficult and complex problem.
We must all try to ensure that parades never again become the focus for the sectarian bitterness that has plagued Northern Ireland for so long. The events of the past three years at Drumcree, in the Ormeau road and in Londonderry have seen a rekindling of deep community divisions that some hoped had been consigned to the past.
In the wider political context, even in the face of the shocking and futile violence of recent days, the opportunity exists to make real progress. The Bill is intended to ensure that those on either side who seek only to foment discord and prevent progress cannot use the issues relating to parades to bring their malign influence to bear.
Many seek to apportion blame for the problems presented by parades, but we should give credit to those who made the courageous decisions on the weekend of 12 July that ensured that last year's marching season passed off without the serious wide-ranging disturbances of the previous two years. There were problems last year, but fewer than in previous years because of that brave decision by the Orange Order. That is a hopeful sign for this year and the years ahead. I am confident that passing the Bill will pay dividends in the coming months and beyond.
The members of the Parades Commission deserve immense credit for the work that they have done in facilitating agreement and resolving individual disputes to date. I assure them that they have the Government's whole-hearted support in meeting the great challenges that they will face.
The commission has now received views on the three draft documents that were published for consultation purposes in October last year. Following the enactment of the Bill, the documents will be laid before each House and will be brought into effect by an order made under the affirmative resolution procedure. As I announced on Second Reading and clarified in Committee, hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate the documents fully in due course.
Our debates have confirmed the depth of feeling on all sides about the issue—a passion that is peculiar to Northern Ireland. If we succeed in resolving an issue that is, in so many ways, a microcosm of the almost intractable problems that Northern Ireland has faced for so long, it will surely help to serve as a blueprint for a more stable and better future for all the people. That is the Government's earnest wish.
I wish the Parades Commission well in the task that lies before it once the Bill has received Royal Assent. That task could be difficult, or it could be easy. It will depend on the willingness of those who are exercising their right to march, and on those who may wish to protest, genuinely to seek points of agreement, to understand the language of compromise and to accept the other person's right to have a different point of view. That is the true sign of a healthy and mature democracy. The Bill provides a framework and a vehicle to help Northern Ireland towards that end, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Moss: Like the Minister, I wish the Parades Commission every success in the difficult task that lies before it this year.
I welcome what the Minister said about the constructive contributions made in Committee, both here and in the other place. I am glad that the Government have looked carefully at Opposition Members' suggestions and gone quite a long way towards taking them on board, with the aim of ending up with a Bill that seeks to heal the wounds and bring the two sides of the conflict closer together. The main thrust of our amendments and comments in Committee was directed at doing that. We wanted to ensure even-handedness and that the perception on both sides in Northern Ireland was that the Bill is balanced. We sought to bring the two sides together, either by mediation or by sensible measures that people felt took the views of both sides into account.
Some fears have been expressed, mainly by Unionist Members, about the way in which the Government are proceeding. I ask the Minister to pay careful attention to those comments before advising the Parades Commission on how the Bill will be implemented. A small point arose today on a Northern Ireland radio programme in which I took part. It was said that, already, so-called facilitators are contacting people who organised parades last year under the current legislation and filled in notice forms. Those forms have been given to facilitators operating under the commission's jurisdiction and the facilitators have been telephoning people out of the blue to talk about this year's parades.
That is an example of the commission not getting to grips with the essential problem. It would have been more sensible for parade organisers to receive letters stating the commission's aims and telling them about the role of the facilitators and mediators. They could have been asked whether they minded being contacted by telephone. It was obvious from the comments of a representative of the Orange Order on that programme that that telephone exercise has not gone down well. It has probably delayed progress on implementation of the Bill.
I welcome new clause 3, which was debated on Report and provides that groups who wish to arrange protests should give notice to the commission and the police, but the House is still anxious about the difference in treatment between those who organise parades and those who organise protests. The commission will determine whether a parade should be allowed and the RUC and, in the final analysis the Secretary of State, will determine whether a protest should be allowed to go ahead. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and by some Opposition Members.
The role of the commission in dealing even-handedly with parades and protest groups was properly addressed in new clause 2, which I presented in Committee. The Government did not see fit to accept that new clause and they did not see fit to table similar amendments on Report. The new clause related to the commission's powers to impose conditions on counter-demonstrations or protests. Perhaps the Government will re-examine the issue before the Bill goes to the other place, which I presume will be within the next few days.
There may be a loophole in the measures that deal with protest meetings. When we tabled amendments in Committee, we used the term counter-demonstrations.

I accept that the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting our requests by redefining that term and coming up with the term protest meetings. That is cleverly linked with open-air public meetings so that the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 can apply, but the use of the word meeting might suit people who are out to cause mischief. They could call a number of meetings along the route of a march rather than organise a counter-demonstration against a parade.
As the Minister knows, some marches cover quite a long distance. Several notices may be issued by groups holding protest meetings that they would seek to endorse on the basis of the fact that perhaps a different housing estate was being passed or the parade was going through a different locality. It is worth considering that point to ensure that when the commission comes to implement its policies, is not in any way, shape or form presented with difficulties by people who wish to cause mischief.
I have listened carefully to the debate on the Government amendment to remove mediation from the commission. Powerful arguments were advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Again, the Government may need to think carefully about whether they wish the commission to have a hands-on role in mediation, or whether we should have facilitators who, as we have heard already, have not necessarily gone about their work in the right and sensible way.
On the overall thrust of the Bill, as we said on Second Reading and reiterated in Committee, the Opposition are in broad favour of what the Government are attempting to do. The Bill stems from the North report, which the previous Government initiated, although we did not pick it up and run with it as quickly as the current Government have done. We recognise that they are attempting to solve this difficulty and, as long as they do that in a way that brings both communities together, the Government will have all our support.

Mr. McGrady: I unequivocally endorse the Minister's condemnation of the recent spate of murders immediately before and after Christmas. They were possibly the most horrendous and callous murders that the community has experienced for a long time. There are those who argue that there were two series of killings: so-called tit-for-tat killings following the assassination of Billy Wright in the Maze prison, with the Irish Republican Socialist party involved; and a second campaign to instil sheer terror by killing totally innocent Catholics who were unconnected with any organisation and had no public stance, but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am glad that those killings, at least for the time being, seem to have been brought to a halt, but we are still under daily threat from the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which says that it will reintroduce a reign of terror if its demands are not met.
Against that background, the Bill attempts to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland's communities. I have said before that the necessity for the Bill is a bad reflection on those communities, in that we appear to be unable to compromise when that should obviously be the order of the day. Perhaps a bit of give and take, a bit of understanding and a bit of acceptance of a different view would have done away with the deep divisions that have been created by marches and counter-protests and the enormous economic and social damage that was done as a result of some of those confrontations.
The commission will have to face such difficulties in its first term of office. It has to do the almost impossible: to square the circle and try to bring together those strongly held opinions—opposing rights or, if you like, opposing civil rights. I wish the commission well in that endeavour. My party tabled amendments in an attempt to facilitate the commission's work, to make it easier to accomplish and more acceptable to both communities. That was the spirit in which we approached the Bill.
I know that members of the Unionist community have often regarded the Bill as an anti-parade Bill. I do not see it that way. I would hope that the vast majority of parades, of whatever denomination or persuasion, are allowed to take place but, unfortunately, there are points of conflict and conflagration that have to be dealt with—they will not go away. I hope and pray that the commission, armed with the necessary powers, will bring the various differences to a happier conclusion. I hope that that will be the reward for all of us for passing the Bill.
I thank Ministers and the members of the Committee for our very tolerant and wide-ranging debates and for their expressions of concern. Those debates provided a flavour of the tremendous difficulties that the commission will face, and I hope that members of the commission will read the reports of the seven Committee sittings to get that flavour and that they will use it in their decision making. 1 thank Ministers for being ready to listen, accept and amend. Unfortunately, the Government sometimes rejected our best advice, but that is their prerogative. However, there was a fair bit of give and take. Not only Ministers were up front; various Officers of the House gave me and others assistance and helped make the whole process more intelligible.
I wish the commission well. I hope that what we are striving to accomplish through the Bill will be reflected in our future debates on Northern Ireland and that the tension with which the Bill is intended to deal will be removed from the communities in which we live and which we all love in our different ways.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that everyone will join the Minister in condemning the violence and the tragedies that have taken place. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said at his party conference some years ago, the IRA has killed more Roman Catholics than the police, the UDR or any other forces in Northern Ireland. We should put events into the right perspective. We should also put into perspective the fact that we have suffered a series of killings of Protestant people—a genocide of Protestant people. One has only to go to the graveyards on the border, to Castlederg, for example, to see that. One can see how family after family has been slaughtered by the IRA. Those killings were far more intense and extensive than any of the killings in recent days.
One night, I sat in a room with the Chief Constable and a group of men from Enniskillen who were all members of the UDR. They told the Chief Constable that there used to be 50 of them but that now there were 20. They said that if he came back in a few years, there would not even be 20, and there are not 20 now. I know what happened; it is a serious matter, so we had better remember that.

Mr. Trimble: I do not disagree in any way with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but it

appears that there has been another shooting this evening—unfortunately, in my constituency, in the town of Lurgan. It would therefore be appropriate to mention that it appears that those responsible for the shooting are loyalists, although we do not yet know the circumstances or identity of the victim. In view of that, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in underlining our complete rejection and condemnation of such murders, particularly the incident that appears to have happened tonight. I am sure that he does not want his appropriate comments about other circumstances to lead people to assume that we do not condemn the recent murders.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I join the right hon. Gentleman without reservation in that. One of my ministers is under severe threat in that area. He has been told that he will probably be targeted and taken out. Everyone knows what is happening in Northern Ireland.
We are discussing this because the IRA's strategy is to develop bitterness in communities along the lines that we have seen. That is not just what we say—it is what they say. Gerry Adams, the chief of IRA-Sinn Fein, said on a well-publicised RTE programme that it had taken three years of preparation and planning to organise and orchestrate the anti-parade feeling, which he said would be exploited to the advantage of the Provisional IRA. What words could be clearer? He has exposed their intentions. They succeeded. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not here at the moment, made it clear that there are convicted terrorists in the forefront of the agitation, carrying out murders for the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein.

Rev. Martin Smyth: There have been references to the past tonight. People might think that we are looking at the past. Looking to the future, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the seminars held last summer in which committees for estate control were set up throughout Northern Ireland? Each committee must contain at least one ex-prisoner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Chairmen of community organisations have also been told to ensure that the officers appointed at their next annual general meeting include leading members of Sinn Fein and ex-prisoners. That is happening at the moment. The strategy for bringing the IRA's plan to its zenith is set in place. I am alarmed by hon. Members, including Ministers, suggesting that the Orange Order is to blame for what has happened. The Government have failed—

Mr. Ingram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way in a moment or two. The Minister was not so quick to give way to me, so he can wait for it.
As we know, something happened in Londonderry. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party made it clear at the time that he had nothing to do with what happened and condemned it. That condemnation was accepted. Tonight, I heard the Minister praising people of the committee. My party did not get on to the committee. The Government have said that they are not going to appoint people in keeping with the community. The Democratic Unionist party is not regarded as part of the community. I get the largest vote across Northern Ireland in election after election for the European Parliament.


I must be part of the community. I do not know why the Government leave us off committees. It will not do them any good. If the community is not equally represented, the Government make trouble for themselves. Having said that, I shall give way.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers had made accusations, and attributed blame to the Orange Order for the problems. He will not find one word during any stage of the consideration of this Bill, or anywhere else, that can uphold that charge. Indeed, in my opening remarks, I paid tribute to the Orange Order for the brave decisions that it took during the 12th weekend last year. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get the facts right when he is speaking about very important issues such as this.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman reads in Hansard tomorrow what his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, and not what he tried to say, I shall be proved right. Let us just keep to the facts.
People say on television that they will not tolerate the majority of the thugs. Who was the majority? Who did we hear saying that the bully boys were out? I live in Northern Ireland. I hear what Ministers say, and I hear what others say, too. The Orange Institution and the Protestant people are not responsible for this. This has been orchestrated by the IRA.
I was called to order earlier because I was exposing the IRA. Now, on Third Reading, I can make the statement that I wanted to make. Who are these IRA people? One is a man called Martin McGuinness. If I said things about him in the House, people would say, "That's just Ian Paisley," but 1 have in my hand an article written by a Roman Catholic journalist from the Bogside. She takes Martin McGuinness to task; she deals with him as she knows him. Those people are organising what the Government say they are going to deal with. She of course supports the Bloody Sunday investigation.
This journalist says about Mr. McGuinness:
How dare you, big chief republican. current killers' mouthpiece, former killers' colleague, clamour for prosecutions.
If we inquired into the entirety of the violence of the early 1970s with half the vigour you want for the Bloody Sunday investigators, who would stand accused beside the paratroopers.
'I think General Sir Robert Ford (Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland in 1972) in particular is going to come under the microscope,' you said.
It's a pity you could not go under with him. Perhaps the search for truth and justice will someday uncover the role of command you had in another land force of the time.
That is where I was stopped in the previous debates. The article continues:
Mrs Rose Heggarty must long to know.
Who is Rose Heggarty? The article continues, saying to Martin McGuinness,
You promised, on bended knee, that her son was safe to return from exile.
He was in hiding from the IRA who had threatened to kill him. You promised and cajoled and charmed her into telling him to come home.
A few boys would question him and he'd be free to go, you told her. His sister drove him to the appointed place. His sister, unwittingly, drove him to his death. He was shot and his body unceremoniously dumped.

Those women long for the truth behind that atrocity. They won't hold their breath waiting for you to speak it.
As Sinn Fein spokesman, your truths, like your morality, are selective. Your double standards are sickening … Sinn Fein should shut up … They have covered a dirty, murky, bloody past of their own in a way that makes Widgery look positively Godly.
That is a statement not of a Unionist leader or an elected leader, but of a Roman Catholic journalist from that area. She knows what people have had to put up with.
Martin McGuinness is a man who has been behind the whole thing as an agitator, yet now we hear condemnations of ordinary decent law-abiding citizens simply because they want to hold on to their culture and heritage. The House needs to realise how deeply all that goes into the quick not only of Protestant people but of people such as Mrs. Heggarty.
What about the bodies that the IRA, although it knows where they lie, will not give up for decent Christian burial? Yet I am told that I have to negotiate with such people and reach some sort of rapport with them. Ministers say that they hope that the two sides will come together. How can we come together with such a person, who has never once breathed a regret that those things should have happened?
Tonight, we are dealing with a Bill about processions, and we all know where it is directed. It is directed against Orangism, the Black Institution and the Apprentice Boys of Londonderry. We shall see that when it comes into operation.
Something else needs to be said in the House tonight. The suspicion in Northern Ireland is that the reason why there has been a shift from putting the commission in the front line to adjudicate, is that the Government know that the ordinary general public have had a bellyful of that kind of thing, and will not take too well to people telling them that they have to make their peace with the Martin McGuinnesses and the Gerry Adamses of this world, despite the fact that those men fomented the conflict and brought it into being.
Now the commission will be in an ivory tower. It will not be down at the coal face seeing what is happening. Already, unofficially appointed facilitators who have happened to obtain the names of people who have made applications for parades are going round trying to talk to them. How dare any Government or authority hand names over to a commission that is not yet in position, and get it working already on making calls to those people? If that is the way things are to be done, no wonder there is outrage among the people concerned.
We had better realise now that that will not be a solution. I have been a Member of the House since 1970, and I have heard many similar debates down through the years, in which people have said, "We have come to the end; we are going to get a solution." The solution that was put to us—

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has been explaining to the House that some people who ran processions last year are getting telephone calls from the facilitators—or whatever the Dickens they are called. How do the facilitators get hold of those names and telephone numbers? After all, the only people who should know them are the police. Did the Government release the names? If so, why?
The names are those of ordinary citizens—men and women who hold no public position whatever—and they are now being exposed in their own communities to harassment, danger, intimidation, terror and threat of death. The hon. Gentleman knows that one of the Unionist councillors elected in Londonderry in May has had to leave the city because of threats. There are supposed to be at least 30 other people under threat of death from the terrorist organisations at this moment—yet those terrorists are the people with whom we are supposed to be doing a deal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The only way in which people could have those names and numbers is through the applications made to the police. That is where the first names were removed. Evidently, the names came into the hands of the commission, and although it will not be fully appointed until the Bill becomes law, it is already employing people to telephone and say that they want to talk about next year.
A friend of mine who lives in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Unionist party, has been called by the police and told that people want to talk to him about what is to happen in July. That is going on, and it is not right. I want the Minister to dissociate himself from that and say that there is no right to do that until the machinery is in place. That is his responsibility.
It is terrible that information about people signing a document for a parade should become public property. Information on a secretary of an organisation should be confidential to the security authorities. Everyone can be put on a death list, and everyone can be subject to intimidation from those who want to deal with the particular interest that that person has.
I was amazed that the Minister said that the body had to be representative of the people, but added that he was going to bring in people from other parts of the UK to be on the body. I do not know how in the name of goodness the Government can twist the Bill to say that the body will represent the community. A person who is not a member of that community is not in a fit position to represent it. He must be a member of the community, he must live in it and he must know something about it. It is like saying that an hon. Member should represent a constituency but should never go near it, have nothing to do with it and just tell the people what he wants.
I have heard claims about the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanting this, that or the other thing. However, the people making those claims never submitted themselves to the electorate. The Government say that they told the people that, if they came to power, the Bill would be passed, but they never put up one candidate. I understand that their party does not permit anybody to organise in Northern Ireland—yet the Government say what will be done. That is not what was done in Scotland or Wales, where the people were given a referendum and were permitted to say what they wanted.
When the Government see that the Unionists in this House together have one mind on this issue, they should pay a little heed to what Unionist leaders are saying. If the Government steamroller on, the sad thing is that it is not the Government but the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who will reap the consequence, with all the trouble and problems that that will bring. The people of Northern

Ireland will have to reap the whirlwind that comes from the sowing of the wind. The House should take note of that.
Northern Ireland is in an evil case because there has not been a frank and forthright facing up to those who intend to take it down an evil road. We have seen what the IRA is doing, and it has succeeded. Nobody is more happy that we are having this debate tonight than the IRA, and nobody is more happy that the Bill is going through. The Bill is a nursery of grievances. People wishing to demonstrate are given less time than the people who are to organise the parade, and they can do it.
Even if those involved do not give the 21-day notice, they have a way out. Is it not practical for them to say, after receiving 28 days' notice, that they are to protest? That is the law of the land, which will bring a reaping of tears. The Bill will not bring the peace and reconciliation that we are told it will bring. It will bring confusion and help the IRA with their dastardly work. We shall reap a sad harvest of this night's work. It has happened before in this House and it is happening again tonight.
Representatives from Northern Ireland only can feel heart sorrow for their people and for the people of all representatives, because the SDLP Members and others who represent another strand of society have their difficulties too—no one knows that more than I. No one in North Antrim or Northern Ireland, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, can point a finger at me and say, "You don't represent your constituents," because I do. I represent them all and I know how they all feel. I say to the House, do not think that this measure will be any panacea for this ill; it will make it worse.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister started his speech on Third Reading by referring to recent murders in Northern Ireland, and the implication of his remarks was that the Bill would go some way toward resolving the difficulties that Northern Ireland experiences. The last time I heard that was when Mrs. Thatcher told us in 1985 that she had signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, because something had to be done to stop the violence. At that time, my wife wrote to Mrs. Thatcher and said that the blood of every man and woman who died from that day on would lie on her head, because she had sold out to the threat of violence. She would never have signed that deal had it not been for the IRA, its murders and its violence. We all knew that that was true and the end result is that there has been a lot of bloodshed from that day to this.
Tonight, the Minister stands and tells us that the Bill will stop the violence. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been in the House longer than any of the rest of us from Northern Ireland and has said plainly that the Bill is a factory of grievances. I have heard that expression used in respect of Northern Ireland legislation before on many occasions, and every single time it has been used, events have proven it correct—the downstream consequences have proven that our words were absolutely accurate. However, it does not seem to matter how often we are right in this place; the Government, of whatever complexion, go on doing their own thing and the end result is more and more misery for those whom we represent.
The Minister may sit and chatter and laugh and think that he is going to have a wonderful time this coming summer. He referred to Drumcree, the Ormeau road and


Londonderry and the implication is that, by passing the legislation, all those things will be prevented in future. However, the only person who could draw that conclusion from the events of the past year or two is one who completely misunderstands what is going on in Northern Ireland.
The Government are accepting the Sinn Fein-IRA analysis, as they call it, of the situation, but that analysis is totally false. The real analysis is that Northern Ireland is suffering from an assault on its constitutional position by a terrorist organisation—a ruthless, violent and evil terrorist organisation. Despite the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA have had the same opportunity as anyone else to ask people to vote for them over a long period of time, they have never been able to convince other than a small fraction of the population of the rightness of their cause or of the merits of a united Ireland. Because they could not convince people, they turned to violence—it is as simple and as straightforward as that.
Faced with a terrorist organisation, one has a simple choice: one can defeat it or one can be defeated by it. This House has been constantly defeated by it for the past 30 years. It is from this House that the men, the material and, above all, the political will have to come to defeat that terrorism. That will has been sadly lacking throughout my period—and more than my period—in this place, and I have been here longer than most hon. Members present tonight.
Today we shall wind up with a Bill. Where do we go from here? We are told in amendment No. 27 that the Government want to
secure that as far as is practicable the membership of the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
As has been said, people cannot be representatives of the community unless they live in it. It was not even possible to find a chairman who was representative of the community. It was necessary to appoint someone who had experience of settling industrial disputes in Great Britain, as if Northern Ireland was an industrial dispute rather than a terrorist war.
There was a mess in the group of amendments to which I have just referred, when even the Minister could not get his amendment right. Instead of a provision that reflected percentages of population and the number of commissioners, we ended up with a quorum of three, regardless of whether there are two, three, four, five or six members of the commission. That seems crazy. But there we are; that is the way it is.
We are told that the marchers, the people of Northern Ireland, must seek agreement with their neighbours. They will not have to seek agreement with ordinary, decent neighbours, however, because those neighbours are not causing any trouble. Instead of throwing stones, those people are getting on with their lives. However, marchers are told to do a deal with the IRA. Perhaps the Minister wants to deal with the IRA, and there are a hell of a lot of people in Northern Ireland who think that that is exactly what the Government are up to. I repeat: there are a hell of a lot of people in Northern Ireland who think that that is what the Government are up to. That is what colours the approach of many of us to this Government, given their behaviour in Northern Ireland.
I will not go much further than to say that some of us have the gravest suspicions about some of the things that happened under the previous Administration and the one before that. We cannot understand how anyone can be so blind to what is happening in Northern Ireland as successive Administrations have been in this place. Surely they must have been, and are, wilfully blind and wilfully unwilling to face facts.
Those of us who live in Northern Ireland understand the situation. Although I and others have expressed our views in the House, we have been constantly ignored. The result is the state in which we see our Province.
The House has ensured that democracy will not work in Northern Ireland. It will not allow democratic standards to work in Northern Ireland. In Scotland and Wales, no matter what happens, it is proposed that there will be majority rule. When was majority rule ever dreamed of by any occupant of either Front Bench for Northern Ireland? It has never been considered for more than 30 years. The Government then try to tell us that the House lives by democracy. I say to the Government Front Bench, "Gentlemen, if you are to make us believe that, you had better start acting according to what you say, rather than saying one thing and doing another." To say one thing and do another in present conditions and in the current situation, so far as the people of Ulster are concerned, is nothing more nor less than base treachery.

Mr. Thompson: We are near the end of a long debate on the Bill. Anyone who has read the Bill and listened to all that has been said must realise that while Ministers have not criticised the Orange Institution or the Loyal Orders, the implication can be only that the Bill is designed to act against them.
When we read the guidance notes, the code of practice and all the rules and regulations, we find that in the main they are directed at the Loyal Orders and the Protestant community in Northern Ireland.
At the last minute, to seek to appease us, the Government threw in notification of those who wish to protest against parades. The responsibilities that they will have will be far fewer than those that have been placed on those who wish to hold parades.
The Bill will produce more bureaucracy, more objections and more trouble for those who wish to hold parades, who will have to notify others that they wish to exercise their rights. Indeed, we have been told tonight about the plans that are going ahead in certain quarters to produce more protests in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that, as time goes on, that will happen.
The Government must recognise that the Bill does not have the support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, or of the elected representatives from Northern Ireland, yet they have chosen to ignore our arguments. The Government are determined to drive on in their own sweet way, irrespective of what the majority think. That is a negation of democracy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, we who represent the majority in Northern Ireland are tired of being treated as second-class citizens in Northern Ireland. Everywhere else in the United Kingdom, elections can be held and the majority get their way and are entitled to rule. In Northern Ireland,


however, we are second-class citizens. We can have elections and win them, but it does not make one bit of difference, because we do not get the results of those elections, and we are not allowed to have our way. That is a derogation from democracy.
The Bill is completely impracticable. Anyone who knows anything about parades in Northern Ireland knows that. The idea that a commission of six people will be able to review all the parade applications in Northern Ireland in order to decide whether there should be a determination against them is nonsense. In May, June and July, they will be overwhelmed with applications. It will be an unacceptable work load for them to meet and to dissect each application, and decide whether a determination is necessary.
Moreover, the Bill will mean that on the day of a parade, the police will have fewer powers than they have now. That will create more problems, as there will be more people out on the streets objecting to loyalist parades.
We cannot accept that an unelected body nominated by the Secretary of State can take decisions on law and order. That body is unacceptable to the elected Members from Northern Ireland. The Orange Institution has said clearly that the Parades Commission is unacceptable to it. We had hoped that the Government would make substantial changes during these debates, and that they would take our views on board more than they have, but they have refused to do so.
When the trouble comes, when it escalates, and when we have more objections, the responsibility will lie entirely and exclusively on the heads of this Administration, who have sought to impose this disastrous Bill on the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Öpik: We, too, record with the greatest sadness the violence of the year so far. Lest we forget what we are doing here, let us recall the terrible headlines that remind us that this is no academic debate. It is a stepping stone, I hope, to a more secure present and future. It is tragic to learn that, even as we have been discussing what we hope is a path towards peace tonight, another life has been taken in Northern Ireland. Our thoughts must go to the family and friends of that victim.
Parades are a unique part of Northern Irish life, and it is sometimes hard for people on the mainland and abroad to understand how very important they are. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to give and take. It is sometimes hard—

Mr. Ingram: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that another life has been lost in Northern Ireland. According to my information, there has been an incident, but no loss of life. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret the remarks of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Mr. Öpik: I am glad to hear that the incident is not as serious as I thought. Nevertheless, the continuation of violence at any level is greatly regretted when we believe sincerely that a ceasefire and a cessation of violence would be in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the future of the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is difficult for people to identify any way forward when there appears to be such intransigence—such a big barrier—dividing the communities in Northern Ireland. Some actions may appear to be symbolic, but that symbolism is very important and can lead to real, practical changes that impact directly on other processes that we desperately hope will produce a lasting settlement. We should remember that only a tiny minority of parades that are held every year in Northern Ireland involve flashpoints and incidents. However, those flashpoints justify this legislation.
Tonight's debate has revealed the intricacies of the issue. The Liberal Democrats are not 100 per cent. satisfied with the final outcome, but we believe that the legislation is a big and important step forward. It establishes a strategy and gives the commission a clear mandate on how to proceed. I do not envy those in Northern Ireland who must perform what must be regarded as one of the most difficult functions in the Province. I believe that mediation will be one of the most testing aspects of the commission's work, and precedent and experience will clarify that process. It is sometimes difficult for Governments to concede ground, but the Minister withdrew an amendment earlier. I hope that the Government will continue to listen to a variety of opinions about Northern Ireland.
The Bill will not bring peace to Northern Ireland—it is only a small part of the process, and addresses the symptoms of the problem and not the underlying cause. The process is slow. It is now nearly 2 am, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that he would debate the legislation all night if necessary—although we have already been here for much of the night. That says something about the debate and the character of Northern Ireland. There is a passion peculiar to the issue that tends to keep us here. Whatever one may feel about the contributions of other hon. Members, there is no doubt that they are offered sincerely. The progress of these debates has great gravitas, and I am sure that their importance is not lost on a single hon. Member.
In many ways, the wonderful passion of Northern Ireland is also what divides it. In that sense, one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths is also its greatest weakness. There are many good, decent people here tonight who are doing their best to secure an enduring peace that will help to heal the divisions in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, knowing that it is not us but the good people of Northern Ireland who, by their actions, will ultimately determine when the commission's work is done.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I join the Minister and other hon. Members who have already condemned the outrages of the past few weeks in Northern Ireland. From before Christmas, there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries. The serious injuries have been a daily occurrence in the Province. It is right that each one of us should in the strongest and clearest terms condemn the organisations that carry out the shootings, killings and beatings in the Province, whether they be the Ulster


Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or the IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army, or whatever other flag of convenience those organisations may choose to use.
For the past few weeks, literally dozens of people have had their knees either bashed with hatchets, baseball bats or iron bars, or shot, as part of the rule of law that those terrorists would seek to impose on the areas in which they live. People have been killed in the most brutal circumstances. During the past few weeks, a young man trying to earn money for his young family by taking a taxi round was found in the middle of the road in a pool of blood, having already been struck in the face before he was shot in the head.
Another man out in a digger, working in an area where he was supporting two blind brothers, was shot. Neither of those people had the remotest connection to any terrorist organisation or appears to have any political background whatever. They were innocent people, picked out and shot.
We have to ask ourselves, because it is relevant to the debate, why terrorists carry out such activities. The sad reality is that they are rewarded for doing so. We can all condemn them, but there is no use condemning the acts of terrorists and then rewarding those terrorists thereafter. If Gerry Adams is elevated, it is in effect saying to those whom Gerry Adams sent out to kill—yes, himself, sent out to kill—that we are forgetting the deaths that he caused and the acts that he carried out. Whether it was La Mon or Bloody Friday, he was the man who sent people to carry out those killings. Where is he today? He is sitting around a negotiating table with the Government, having been elevated by the previous Government to a position as if he were a statesman in our Province.
We must not condemn on the one hand and elevate and reward on the other. The Bill is about rewarding terrorism. Let no one think that this is an attempt to resolve problems in Northern Ireland that the Government would have made anyway. This has been promoted by the Provisional IRA. On the boast of Gerry Adams, it attempted to disrupt parades which for decades, in some cases more than 100 years, have passed off peacefully. It spent years doing it and it succeeded in doing it. It did so because it wanted to attack the Protestant and loyalist culture; it wanted to undermine the Unionist tradition. It has effectively succeeded in so far as it has got the Government to set in motion a process that the Government before too long will come to regret.
What have the Government done by this legislation? Have they stopped one parade or counter-demonstration? Have they resolved one dispute between concerned residents and marchers? Not at all. They have set in motion a procedure that complicates, confuses and blurs the issues. They have resolved nothing by this legislation. They have, if anything, made it more difficult to resolve the issues.
The issues can be resolved only through mediation. The Government have deliberately taken the role of mediation away from this body. They have done nothing to contribute towards getting peace and stability in the Province, and before too long I rather suspect that the Minister will have to come back to the matter,

and the Bill will go the way of many other attempts to resolve the issue of parades in Northern Ireland—into the trashcan.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 9.

Division No. 152]
[12.2 am


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Atherton, Ms Candy
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Atkins, Charlotte
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Austin, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Benton, Joe
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Blears, Ms Hazel
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Boateng, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
McAllion, John


Bradshaw, Ben
McAvoy, Th omas


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
McCabe, Steve


Browne, Desmond
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Burgon, Colin
McGrady, Eddie


Burstow, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Caborn, Richard
McIsaac, Shona


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNulty, Tony


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
McWilliam, John


Chidgey, David
Marek, Dr John


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Michael, Alun


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Miller, Andrew


Clelland, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clwyd, Ann
Moore, Michael


Coffey, Ms Ann
Mountford, Kali


Connarty, Michael
Mudie, George


Crausby, David
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Norris, Dan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Hara, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Öpik, Lembit


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Pickthall, Colin


Dawson, Hilton
Pike, Peter L


Dobbin, Jim
Pope, Greg


Donohoe, Brian H
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Doran, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Purchase, Ken


Drown, Ms Julia
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ennis, Jeff
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Foulkes, George
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rooney, Terry


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Rowlands, Ted


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Roy, Frank


Godsiff, Roger
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Grogan, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hain, Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Sanders, Adrian


Hanson, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Healey, John
Sheerman, Barry


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Heppell, John
Singh, Marsha


Hill, Keith
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spellar, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Hutton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Iddon, Dr Brian
Stott, Roger


Ingram, Adam
Stringer, Graham


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Stunell, Andrew


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Jamieson, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Jenkins, Brian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)






Timms, Stephen
Webb, Steve


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike



Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Watts, David
Mr. John McFall.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Forsythe, Clifford
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Hunter, Andrew
Walker, Cecil


Maginnis, Ken



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. William Thompson.

Division No. 153]
[1.59 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Alexander, Douglas
McGrady, Eddie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Austin, John
McNulty, Tony


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
McWilliam, John


Betts, Clive
Marek, Dr John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boateng, Paul
Michael, Alun


Bradshaw, Ben
Miller, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Browne, Desmond
Moore, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Mountford, Kali


Caborn, Richard
Mudie, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Mullin, Chris


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Norris, Dan


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Clapham, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Pickthall, Colin


Clelland, David
Pike, Peter L


Coffey, Ms Ann
Pope, Greg


Connarty, Michael
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Cotter, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Crausby, David
Purchase, Ken


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Davidson, Ian
Rendel, David


Dawson, Hilton
Rooker, Jeff


Dobbin, Jim
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Donohoe, Brian H
Ryan, Ms Joan


Dowd, Jim
Sanders, Adrian


Drown, Ms Julia
Savidge, Malcolm


Ennis, Jeff
Sheerman, Barry


Etherington, Bill
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Singh, Marsha


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Godsiff, Roger



Hain, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Spellar, John


Hanson, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Stott, Roger


Heppell, John
Stringer, Graham


Hill, Keith
Stunell, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Hoyle, Lindsay
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Hutton, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Vaz, Keith


Ingram, Adam
Vis, Dr Rudi


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Jenkins, Brian
Watts, David


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Wood, Mike


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Worthington, Tony


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Livsey, Richard



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. David Jamieson and


McCabe, Steve
Mr. John McFall.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forsythe, Clifford
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Hunter, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Green Belt (Sutton Coldfield)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mr. Brian Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and ruling on whether this Adjournment debate should be allowed to proceed. The right hon. Member who has been awarded the privilege of this debate is none other than the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the official spokesperson for the Opposition. He is a Front-Bench spokesman, and at any time he can put his views at the Dispatch Box. In fact, he did so fairly recently.
The Opposition day motion on 27 January 1998 was on the protection of the countryside. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not make a speech in that debate, he intervened and mentioned the item that is under discussion tonight, so he had the opportunity to pursue this matter just over a week ago.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the defender and guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, rule that this debate is inappropriate? We saw earlier the spectacle of a Front-Bench spokesman riding on the back of a Back Bencher's amendment. What is to prevent every Front-Bench spokesman, or even every Minister, from lining up and shutting out Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. There is no bar to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen speaking from the Back Benches in an Adjournment debate. That is normal, and it is entirely up to them whether they speak on constituency interests or on other subjects.

Sir Norman Fowler: I deeply resent what the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) has just said. I also deeply resent the fact that he gave me no notice of his point of order. I am responding to what the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said in a debate on regional development agencies in which I intervened. He told me that I should raise this matter as a constituency issue. He will confirm that.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): That is absolutely correct.

Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that the hon. Member for Tamworth will accept that I have a right, just as he does, to speak for my constituents, and that is precisely what I intend to do.
I first raised the issue of the green belt in Sutton Coldfield in an Adjournment debate in May 1996. I pointed out the danger to the green belt from a proposed industrial development near Minworth in my constituency. That site on the edge of Sutton Coldfield and Birmingham is 150 acres of agricultural land in active use. There is nothing marginal about that land: it is undoubted agricultural land, and undoubted green-belt land.
In May 1996, during the previous Parliament, I asked for the application to develop that land to be called in, and for a public inquiry to be held. I wanted a proper determination of the case and of green-belt policy generally. I said that, if the Minworth site were developed, the future of the green-belt policy would be in severe doubt. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Secretary of State for the Environment, called in that application, and a public inquiry was duly held.
It is the events that have occurred since then that I want to draw to the House's attention. What has happened sounds a warning for everyone who is interested in the future of the green belt and the protection of the countryside.
I shall summarise the history of the scheme. It centres on the efforts of the West Midlands development agency—which seeks to encourage inward investment—and the Department of Trade and Industry to persuade Philips to site a micro-electronics factory in this country. Philips was known to be examining the prospects of such a factory, and a joint effort was made to bring it to the west midlands.
There is no doubt that Philips was the intended user of the site. That was made clear to me in discussions in which I engaged in 1996 with both officials and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. The question was not that; the question was where the factory should go.
It was at that point that Birmingham city council came into the story. The council owned the majority of the Minworth site. If it could sell the site, it would make a substantial capital gain—probably £30 million or £40 million. The council thus had a direct financial interest in developing the land, and all the evidence suggests that it used its power to ensure that the Minworth site was chosen. It was in a strong position: it not only owned the site, but was the planning authority.
At the time of my earlier Adjournment debate, there were two possible sites. One was owned by P and 0, and one by Birmingham city council. The councillors in Sutton Coldfield, local residents and I were opposed to both. The council, however, used all its power to ensure that the site that it owned was chosen.
According to the evidence given at the public inquiry, the council, as the local planning authority, made no serious attempt to carry out a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the two sites, and consistently applied double standards in favour of its own land. Nevertheless, even the council was unable to force the proposal through without a public inquiry once my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State had acted.
We proceeded to the public inquiry. The West Midlands development agency was represented by a Queen's counsel and a legal team. P and 0 was represented by a QC and a legal team. Birmingham city council was represented by counsel and a legal team. PowerGen, which was putting forward an alternative site, was represented by a QC and a legal team.
The only group that had no legal representation were the residents of Sutton Coldfield. The residents, the councillors and I appeared without the benefit of those

expert legal teams. Nevertheless, when it came to the inspector's recommendation to the Secretary of State, he recommended that planning permission be refused on both sites where permission was being sought. In normal circumstances, that would have meant that the 150-acre site was saved.
The inspector heard all the arguments about the green belt. I pay tribute to the thoroughness of the inquiry. He heard all the arguments about the damage to the countryside; indeed, he said that the development would lead to considerable and severe harm to the green belt in physical, visual and functional terms. He also considered all the arguments that were advanced about the employment consequences of a possible development—although it must be said that I regard some of those claims as totally fanciful.
There was one argument, however, that even the inspector was unable to examine. Although the whole aim was to attract Philips to the site, the company itself refused to allow its name to be attached to the application. That meant that no questions could be asked about the siting of the factory or, indeed, about the urgency of the issue. Government guidance is that any green-belt development should not be approved other than in exceptional circumstances. Without the end user, it was impossible to tell whether such circumstances applied. Philips was therefore unwilling to become involved in the controversy surrounding the site.
That decision had one other profound effect, because, to all intents and purposes, the application became speculative. There was no named end user. The duty on the inspector was to decide whether, exceptionally, a factory of the kind proposed should be sited in the green belt.
The inspector's finding was unequivocal. Both proposals, the one by P and O and that by the West Midlands development agency were rejected. He said that they would have resulted in a substantial loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. That independent inspector stated:
In the absence of compelling reasons for making an exception to national policies for protecting land as a national resource, both proposals are unacceptable.
In normal circumstances, that would have been the end of the matter. Accordingly, the inspector recommended that, in both cases, planning permission should be refused. The inspector, Mr. C. H. Johnson, presented his report to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment in April 1997 in the midst of the election campaign. Entirely correctly, it was left until the outcome of the election was known for the new Secretary of State to make a decision.
I now come to one of the most disturbing parts of the whole story. Although the report was with Ministers from the day the new Government took office, no statement was made about it in the Session to the end of July. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who will reply to the debate, announced the Government's decision not when Parliament was sitting but a week into the summer recess, on Friday 7 August. That must rank as one of the crudest attempts we have known to manipulate the press and to slip out what was recognised as a controversial statement. I have contempt for those tactics.
It was not just the crude attempt to fix that is so objectionable. The Minister's timing meant more than that. It meant that much of the 42-day period in which


residents had to consider an appeal to the courts for a judicial review occurred in the middle of the holiday period, when it was difficult to get people together. No one should have worried, because the potential cost of raising a challenge in the courts for a judicial review, which would not in any event have reversed the position, is prohibitive. If we could not afford legal advice in the first place, it was unlikely that we could have afforded the cost of seeking a judicial review.
That is the story of how permission was granted for the development of the site and how it was announced. It is not a story from which any of the major players can take pride. At times, there was a shabby and discreditable effort to override the will of local people, and the views that have been expressed on the matter are clear. One of my constituents, whom I saw at the weekend, has written to me. He states:
I have been a Labour voter for 15 years, not least because I have a strong social conscience. However, this same conscience has been alarmed by the events of the last two years … Minworth lies within Sutton Coldfield. However, in no way could the village be described as being affluent!
My constituent made a further point:
Birmingham claims that the main reason for supporting Peddimore is the economic diversification it would bring—and yet we learnt from PowerGen at the Public Inquiry that it was first offered to Rover/BMW (bidding against Hams Hall).
It was not for Micro Electronics.
The Warwickshire branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England stated:
We write to express our strong opposition to, and disappointment at, your decision to allow the planning application … This decision sends a signal to developers, local councils with land the wish to develop, and the Quangos set up to promote regional economic development that Green Belt land around cities can be released for development.
There are many other letters of the same sort, but I do not have time to quote from them.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way, I am sorry.
As it happens, no developer has yet come forward; Philips has not, and nor has anyone else. Nevertheless, the permission stands. The inspector's recommendation that, if there were any prospect of permission being given, it should be time limited, was again rejected by the Government.
Basically, therefore, 150 acres of green-belt land are to be destroyed, but the prospect is that that will not be an end to the process. The council, which both owns the land and is the planning authority, will make further proposals. Unless we are careful, there will be a step-by-step domino destruction of the green belt around Sutton Coldfield. Of that there is very little doubt.
What are the lessons of the Government decision? The first is that, although this happened in Sutton Coldfield, it could happen anywhere. As the law stands, the Secretary of State is the final judge and jury in such a case. This Secretary of State talks about the importance of the green belt, but it is deeds, not words, that matter, and this decision brings his position into considerable doubt.
There is a further point. In many ways, the West Midlands development agency is the forerunner of the new regional development agencies, which the Government are setting up. RDAs will also be called on and expected to put together land that can be used for inward investment projects. Like the West Midlands development agency, RDAs are not accountable locally to electors; they are not elected bodies.
Over the coming months and years, other green-belt sites will be put forward, and who is the Minister responsible for regional development agencies? It is, of course, the Minister who is also responsible for planning decisions: the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He is to be judge and jury in his own cause. That raises matters of great concern: constitutional, legal and political concern. We—and, I hope, others—will want to return to the issue.
The die has been cast for the Minworth site. The decision has been taken. The green belt is to be destroyed. It is an act of vandalism. The responsibility lies first with Birmingham council, but, above all, with the Government, who have rejected the independent inspector's report. It seems pointless to have such inquiries, to ask learned and expert people to act as planning inspectors, to take evidence and to cover the whole area, if the Secretary of State simply rejects the inspector's recommendation; but that is precisely what has happened in this case.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has accused me of being passionate about the green belt. That is true, but I am also passionate about justice, and I do not believe that justice has been remotely done. I deplore many of the individual actions that have been taken in this case, but, above all, I deplore the decision. In the light of this evidence, I do not see how anyone can trust this Government to preserve either the green belt or the countryside.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I remind the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that the powers that we will give to regional development agencies will be those that were invested in English Partnerships. Indeed, his Administration, when he was a member of it, gave English Partnerships those powers. It was accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment; there is no difference.
The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that he raised his constituency green-belt concerns in an Adjournment debate on 8 May 1996. I have taken the trouble to read what he said, and to remind myself of what the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), as the Minister replying for the Government of the day, said in response. He referred in particular to the national planning policy framework for the green belt: planning policy guidance note 2. He also drew attention to the framework of regional planning guidance in RPG11.
I stress two points. The current national policy framework for the green belt is the one put in place by the Conservative party when it was in government, and the regional planning framework is also that put in place by the Conservative party. We inherited that framework. We have already announced some of our proposals for modernising the planning system and strengthening the regional planning guidance in particular. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making further announcements in the near future.
We are moving things forward and addressing the issues, but we cannot indulge in the "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here" approach. We have to start with what we inherited, and that means taking decisions in accordance with the framework that we inherited. We have done just that. If the right hon. Gentleman did not like the framework, what did he do about it when his party was in government?
As I said, we inherited the green-belt policy from the previous Administration. We are accused of weakening it. Let me make it clear that we have no such intention. Our policy is as set out in PPG note 2 of January 1985. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. Inappropriate development is justified only if there are very special circumstances whereby the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the harm that could be done to the green belt. We attach great weight to any changes to the green belt which inappropriate development might cause.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the particular issue of the decision last August to grant permission for a major inward investment site at Peddimore in his constituency. The reasons for the decision taken on the Peddimore case were set out fully in the decision letter dated 7 August 1997 to which he referred. This followed a full public inquiry into the proposals and a very careful consideration of the inspector's report.
The background to the Peddimore decision is RPG11— issued, I remind the House, by the previous Government—which recognised that the lack of sites for major inward investment was holding back economic development in the west midlands. RPG 11 recommended that up to two large major investment sites should be provided. Following publication of RPG11, a joint study by the West Midlands Regional Forum of Local Authorities concluded that no brown-field site of suitable size was available in the region. The study identified the Minworth area, where Peddimore is located, as one of two priority areas in the region for locating major industrial inward investment.
The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that we disagreed with the inspector's recommendation to refuse the application. This was a case where a balance had to be struck between economic prosperity and harm to the countryside. Our decision letter acknowledged the serious changes that the development would cause to the green belt, but we gave greater weight than did the inspector to the region's need for inward investment sites, as identified in RPG11, and to the potential economic benefits that a micro-electronics fabrication plant would bring.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to make much of what he calls the speculative nature of the development proposal, but I think he is missing the point. The permission at Peddimore is tightly conditioned. It is for a micro-electronics fabrication plant. It does not create a precedent for any other type of development on the green belt at Peddimore. If the proposed development does not go ahead, the site will remain undeveloped green-belt land. If, on the other hand, proposals are made for alternative development, they will have to go through the planning process and be considered on their merits. I stress that point. So the conditions for the Peddimore site are very tightly drawn.
I understand people's concern about the green belt and the implications of new developments. These cases involve taking hard decisions. In this case, we were satisfied that the potential benefits outweighed the potential harm.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has consistently opposed the proposed development at Peddimore, but I imagine that he would be the first to welcome the jobs and wealth created in his constituency if the proposed development went ahead.
Let me make another observation. The right hon. Gentleman has told us how much opposition there is to the decision. We have heard about petitions to No. 10, and about his doubts. He even wants to change the law so that people can appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. In the statutory six-week period after the decision, neither he nor anyone else exercised their right to challenge it in the High Court.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I want to get everything on the record. It is right that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents should hear the other side of the argument, probably through Hansard.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to pressure on the green belt boundary in his constituency. Let me remind the House what the policy is and what RPG 11 has to say on the matter.
Green belts are established by local authorities through development plans. Once established, it is the Government's policy they should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Ensuring that green belt boundaries endure will mean in some cases safeguarding land between the urban area and the green belt, which may be required to meet longer-term development needs.
Regional policy guidance for the west Midlands—RPG11—published in September 1995, acknowledged that there was no case for a fundamental review of the green belts, and that, in parts of the region, detailed green belt boundaries defined in development plans were well founded and made adequate provision for development, immediately and in the longer term.
The guidance confirmed that
in many cases boundaries remain too tightly drawn around built-up areas".
It went on to say:
the tight green belt boundaries around the metropolitan area … may diminish the value of local plans for making proper provision for necessary development in the future. In some locations where boundaries are tightly drawn and where development can significantly contribute to the objective of reducing the need to travel boundaries are likely exceptionally to need redrawing to make adequate provision for longer-term development.
Those are not my words; they are in RPG11, issued by the previous Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with those conclusions at the time?
Birmingham and other metropolitan authorities in the west midlands are reviewing their unitary development


plans. It is important that they take a suitably strategic view of long-term development needs and green belt boundaries, to ensure that any necessary new development is in the most sustainable locations.
It is easy for Opposition Members to criticise the hard decisions that a Government often have to make. However, it is surprising when they criticise decisions that reflect documents and guidance that they issued when in government.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituency, but our decision should ensure jobs for his constituents and for people across a wider area. In paving the way for economic benefits to flow into the region, we have weighed carefully the implications for the green belt, as we always will. The presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt will remain as strong as ever, as will our determination to face difficult decisions, which we believe is necessary in government. We shall not shy away from them.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has a few minutes before the end of the debate. Will he answer at least one question that I tried to ask in an intervention? He suggested that the lack of a legal challenge from my constituents and me invalidated our argument. Surely he understands that we were advised that getting a judicial review would probably cost about £40,000 or £50,000. It is not unreasonable for residents to decide that they cannot raise such a sum. That does not reflect on their strength of feeling.
The Minister had the inspector's report from May, when the Government came to office. Why did he wait until a week after the House went into recess before announcing his decision?

Mr. Caborn: I understand why no legal challenge was mounted during the six-week period. However, the right hon. Gentleman never challenged RPG11—the foundation of the policy—when it was being debated in the normal channels of putting together the strategic overview for the region. It was made clear that there were no brown-field sites in the area. The two sites chosen were clearly identified then. It is incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he did not object at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the inspector's report. I hope that I have some integrity in the House. We could not just make the decision on 7 May. When we came to government after 18 years in opposition, we had to find our feet.
I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman believes that our timing was planned to manipulate the situation. It was not. We had a lot of planning decisions to make. The processes of government had slowed down during the run-up to the election. We worked very hard from early May, when we came into office, through the summer. I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman was offended, but we had no ulterior motive. I shall defend any of my ministerial decisions at the Dispatch Box.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Three o'clock.